Python, licenses and CVS

[Peter Hansen]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> 
> Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> writes:
> > > Depends. If only one person is working on the project, CVS is overkill.
> > >
> > > If lots of people are working on it, it's a good idea.
> >
> > My opinion: a good idea if only one person is working on it.
> >
> > Mandatory if more than one work on it.
> 
> CVS is a layer over RCS that lets multiple people work on the same
> files at the same time, and automatically merges their changes at
> check-in.  I don't see any point to it for a one person project.  RCS
> is a lot simpler.  I use RCS for one-person projects and couldn't live
> without it.  But I haven't found a reason to deal with the increased
> complexity of CVS.  Is there one?

I don't know much (anything) about how scalable RCS might
be, but I tried it briefly years ago and never found it
of much use at the time.  That may have been before I was
really ready for decent revision control.

I suspect that CVS does have some clear advantages, however,
and those might be in the following areas:

 - compatibility with most open-source projects, at
   least in terms of the reusability of knowledge

 - multiple directory handling

 - support for decent client-server interaction via
   pserver among other things

 - GUI support via WinCVS and others (e.g. on Mac)

 - actively maintained (maybe RCS is too?)

Those suggestions aside, I certainly didn't mean
to suggest that CVS is the only viable option for
single-developer use!  I really only meant to suggest
that revision control itself is of significant
value even for one-person "teams", and you obviously
agree. :)

I wouldn't try to push somebody from RCS to CVS 
(or vice versa) without knowing more.

-- 
----------------------
Peter Hansen, P.Eng.
peter at engcorp.com