Honestly, I think sticking with CVS for a while isn't going to hurt
anyone. Ron Henderson's CVS document is about all the documentation
that is required, and the system works quite well. Sure, I can
(and often have to) hack diffs by hand at times, but we unix guys
are used to that kind of muckery 😉
Admittedly, I've used CVS for a LONG time, on a LOT of different
projects, but in the end, I think the devil you know is preferable
to the alternatives, until there's a real compelling reason to switch.
As for atomic commits. Yes, they are nice, but I have RARELY been
bitten by this one, even on quite busy CVS repositories. THe branching
model can be a hassle, but if you stick to the "one-tree, with
occasional branches around release time", it does just fine. Really,
everyone should be playing with the release version around
release time anyway.
If anything, Don, I might wait even longer next time before branching,
(perhaps even waiting until you cut the beta code). Developers really
shouldn't be committing to the main development branch during a
release cycle anyway (for everyone's sanity).
Speaking of, is there a local (OpenACS) copy of Ron's CVS document?
It's pretty much required reading for an OACS hacker, and I'd hate to
see it disappear one day...
