Web lists-archives.com

Re: backintime




On Monday 21 January 2019 00:12:21 Rusi Mody wrote:

> On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 8:30:05 PM UTC+5:30, David wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 21:07, Andy Smith wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:29:49AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > > For those of you with decades of experience of CVS, you might as
> > > > well stick with it.
> > > >
> > > > For someone entirely new to VCSes, I would absolutely not
> > > > recommend CVS at all.
> > >
> > > Yes. After reading the various diversions into RCS and CVS history
> > > I was a little dismayed.
> >
> > Indeed, I also felt dismay at the idea that newcomers might follow
> > advice to start using these ancient, incredibly limited tools.
> >
> > I'd be surprised if any of the people advocating them aren't well
> > into retirement. I'm not trying to change their minds or opinions, I
> > totally understand wanting to stay with the familiar, because that
> > can be productive, and I absolutely agree with recommending the
> > use of version control, but I feel that recommending RCS or CVS for
> > new starters is extremely poor advice. The field of version control
> > has seriously moved on from those early tools, which were widely
> > abandoned and code migrated to more modern tools for legitimate
> > reasons. It's not a fad.
> >
> > Here's a discussion of GIT features vs CVS ... it's ten years old.
> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/802573/difference-between-git-an
> >d-cvs/824241#824241
>
> Thats a good list of git-cvs comparison
> One can get similar lists for svn vs cvs etc
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1261/what-are-the-advantages-of-us
>ing-svn-over-cvs
>
> What does that have to do with Gene's needs/request?
>
> We can all agree with these facts
> rcs followed by cvs followed by svn followed by git
>
> From which follows the conclusion:
> git obsoletes svn obsoletes cvs obsoletes rcs
>
> Except that the last 'obsoletes' is wrong because rcs is so much
> simpler that it can be taken to solve a quite different problem
> altogether
>
> To summarize the 1st 2nd 3rd version ideas from
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revision_Control_System#Related_tools_an
>d_successors
>
> 1st gen : file based revisions (rcs)
> 2nd gen : client-server model, concurrency (the 'c' in cvs)
> Actually the first faltering steps towards
> multi-user, multi-machine, multi-location multi-OS etc usage
> (zillion other multis eg multi-line-ending support etc)
> 3rd gen : simplify client-server to peer2peer, disconnected usage,
> speed etc
>
> What features beyond 1st-gen are of any use to someone with Gene's
> usage scenario viz. a single-user, single (config) file on a single
> machine??
>
Finally, some understands the difference, thank you.  Finding the save-as 
stuff in geany, apparently disabled by default, is exactly the stuff I 
needed.

> Note that the fact that git is strongly biased towards projects
> (directories) rather than files has made people have this kind of
> discussion [see the accepted answer]
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11128434/how-can-i-use-git-to-trac
>k-versions-of-a-single-file
>
> And even try to implement zit:
>
> Note the blurb from
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=Interfaces,_frontends,_and
>_tools#Zit
>
> | Zit by Giuseppe Bilotta is the Git-based single file content
> | tracker; it uses Git to independently track single files within a
> | directory; sort of like what RCS does, but with the power,
> | flexibility, elegance and ease of use of Git. Still in alpha stage.
> | You can get it from `git://git.oblomov.eu/zit`


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>