Re: [PATCHES] CVS should die

Ian Barwick <barwick@gmail.com> writes:
> Aha, glad I'm not the only one. Version 1.1 has a flat-file based
> backend which is not prone to BDB-permission-related problems, see:
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/svnbook-1.1/ch05.html#svn-ch-5-sect-1.4 .
> It's only been around a few months though and the docs mention
> possible issues with scalability.

One of the reasons I'm disinclined to move is that none of the proposed
alternatives seem especially, um, mature.  AFAIK this project has never
had CVS lose any data in the eight years we've used it.  I'd want a
comparable level of trust in any replacement SCM, and I haven't got it.
        regards, tom lane