Re: what's missing from CVS? extending CVS?

[Brian Ginsbach <ginsbach%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 05:32:40PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> Brian Ginsbach <ginsbach%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 11:40:50AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> >> 
> >> I don't think, architecturally, CVS can handle the requirements.
> >> 
> >> CVS will never have easy/fast branching because branching requires
> >> that you touch every file in the repo. It is difficult to imagine how
> >> CVS would grow easy rename support or other features, either.
> >> 
> >
> > Granted I haven't used it but CVSNT seems to have rename support
> > and some of the other features that have been claimed difficult
> > for CVS to gain..
> 
> CVSNT != CVS.
> 

Hmm, that wasn't exactly my impression.  Maybe architecturally.  I know
I took a glance at the code a while ago and much is still the same as
the GNU version most seem to disparage.

> My understanding is that the way they've achieved the new features is
> by totally altering the architecture. The next version (with atomic
> commits) is to use a database back end, getting rid of the RCS files
> entirely.

Still wouldn't it be worth looking at it even if it is architecturally
different under-the-hood?