Python, licenses and CVS

[Hung Jung Lu]

Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<3C06D1BC.F8B46749 at engcorp.com>...
> Our conclusion was that while SourceSafe *might* be suitable for
> a one-person situation, it was absolutely unsuited, and downright
> *dangerous*, for a team environment.  

I know that from experience. SourceSafe is not safe, I've experienced
crash before, in an environment of about 30 programmers. (Visual
Studio 5, a few years ago already.) However, after recovery, and using
a lot more disk space, the problem did not reoccur, ever.

(Your comment on "SourceSafe *might* be suitable for a one-person
situation" may really hurt the pride of Micro$oft, given that Visual
SourceSafe is used in gigantic corporations, often up to hundreds of
programmers at the same time.)

If I considered switching to CVS, it's because I don't trust
SourceSafe very much anymore. However, my experience with CVS was
quite disappointing. So, I still rely on SourceSafe, but just with
additional measures for backups.

> shell Linux clients.  Perhaps Hung's experience with CVS on 
> Windows was several years ago, and things might have changed.)

No, it was just two months ago. Just compare documentation style of
CVS materials from www.cvshome.org with the documentation style of
Python. A whole world of difference. CVS documentation is really bad,
in my opinion. Unprofessional and immature, if I may add. I have tried
CVS years ago, I have tried CVS two months ago. My opinion is, if I
get frustrated, thousands more people out there probably have had the
same experience.

Enterprise Visual Studio nowadays goes for $300 or less. It sets up in
matter of minutes. In a world where time is money, trying to convince
the Windows world to use CVS is just a tough sell. CVS is still much
attached to the Unix world. As I said, I'd give it a few more years.
It'll get better.

Hung Jung