From: Wolfgang Moser (womo_at_news.trikaliotis.net)
Date: 2007-01-13 08:13:19
Hello all,
my unworthy two cents to some aspect of this discussion.
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote:
> [...]
>
> Of course, SVN is mature until now. Nevertheless, I believe CVS (*not*
> CVSNT!) to be "more mature" than SVN. Somehow, I have more sympathy to
> the CVS/RCS file format. (I used RCS "by hand" more than 10 years ago.)
This sounds as if you are crying for some SVN control system that backs
to some XML format storage artefacts? Not neccessarily meant for beeing
human readable (or hackable) first and foremost, but to give it users
or administrators the feeling that they are not excluded from the
contents, as well as giving the usual platform interchangeble machine
readable meta descriptions.
This document:
http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/info/fsfs
tells that SVN on FSFS gives already platform interchangability for the
back-end (since files can be transported easily), but it doesn't tell
about the concrete storage format.
Womo
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.