Re: What is your preferred VCS?

[Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>]

deadlyhead expounded in news:a1bca3fc-c324-4385-87db-d3b3d626aee4
@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com:

> Thanks for all the replies!  I'm glad nobody took this as an
> invitation to a flame war.  ;-)
> 
> From this small-but-elite sample, it seems like Monotone and Git are
> the routes to check out more deeply, if for no other reasons than
> speed and code security.  Developers seem to trust them!
> 
> Y'know, I've never actually gotten Bazaar to work on any system I've
> been running, whether from packages or source, GNU/Linux or Windows.
> Something in a library always seems to go wrong, and I'm just not
> interested enough to dig deeper.  (I'm not particularly a fan of
> Python, which is why I haven't looked at Mercurial closely, either.)
...
> Sorry, Warren. CVS/SVN are right out.  Their tools that I use to
> download source code from Sourceforge, but I just don't think I could
> handle actually _working_ with them.  I've had better luck just
> archiving the *~ files saved by Emacs than I have with using SVN
> locally.

Well a longer time ago, I just used RCS locally. But I liked the 
idea of having things backed up on a server, so I moved over to
cvs, which was in vogue at the time. 

Then all of a sudden, everyone was developing a new flavour of the
week VCS. I just stayed with cvs while everyone else went through
the teething pains of new systems. I'm too busy to be fussing with
toolchains _and_ my own projects.  I'm also not a big fan of systems
in perl or python. I suppose each has their place, but I don't 
think the track record is that stellar for reliability.

But the time has come where I probably need to look at this again.
Git sounds like a contender.  But it can wait, unless SF takes cvs 
away at some point.

Cvs isn't hard to use. But I have to admit, it wasn't easy when 
I started for some reason. But once you assimilate into the borg,
it all seems to be so natural.

Warren