Robert P. J. Day escribió: > On Thu, 27 Dec 2007, Martin Marques wrote: > >> Robert P. J. Day escribió: >>> and if one were to start a new project that didn't have to be strictly >>> backward compatible with anything, and one already had a decent >>> grounding in CVS, subversion would also be a reasonable choice. >> Why? > > because subversion corrects a number of CVS "issues", and the command > structure is very similar to that of CVS, so all that CVS knowledge > can be transferred over fairly quickly. I will talk about Mercurial, that is what I use. Mercurial fixes all the CVS *issues* and also has the same command structure: hg status hg commit -m "some comment" hg add hg diff etc. And you can start to enter the wonderful world of distributed VCS. :-D > i didn't say that subversion was the best version control system of > all the possible choices -- only that, if one was already fairly > conversant with CVS, it would be a "reasonable" choice for a new > project. All the new VCS have tried to keep the same command structure, not only svn
