On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > If we want to minimize the pain of changing and keep the same mode of
> > operation Subversion is definitely the right choice. Its goal was to provide
> > the same operational model as CVS and fix the implementation and architectural
> > problems.
>
> Erm ... but this is not an argument in favor of changing.
>
> AFAIR the only real disadvantage of CVS that we've run up against is
> that it's hard to shuffle files around to different directories without
> losing their change history (or more accurately, making the history
> harder to find). Now that is a pretty considerable annoyance on some
> days, but it's not sufficient reason to change to something else.
> I have no doubt that every other SCMS has annoyances of its own.
It's not a problem for the project but I personally experience pain with
CVS. I often want to take a bunch of commits and merge them into seperate
trees (like Greenplum DB or my private bitmap index tree). This is a lot
easier with the patch set based SCMs like darcs/monotone/git/etc.
Just my thoughts.
Gavin