subversion

[David Kramer]

Kent Borg wrote:
> I think I started out saying that someone looking at Subversion might
> want to consider that it might be too elegant, that they might want a
> more baroque tool that is specifically focused on source code control.
> Calling svn elegant and not baroque is not an insult nor is it FUD.
> Forgive me if I made any factual errors about Subversion.
> 
> Some people *should* buy a car with automatic transmission.  I prefer
> a manual transmission, but I don't feel threatened that some choose
> differently.
> -kb, the Kent who figures he is allowed a little (constructive?)
> flaming after it is implied he must be too dim witted to set up a
> custom user name in Linux and so needs to find one preconfigured with
> his name already in place.

I think my comparison is valid, but I'm sorry if you took offense.  The
House that Linus Built is made of multifunction bricks with dozens of
command line options.  You can get anything done if you know what tool
does what, and how to chain them together.

The point that *I* take offense is when some people in this thread say
Subversion is bad because it doesn't come preconfigured for their
particular needs.  If you say it doesn't meet your needs because it's
too flexible, that I can understand.  I don't bring the $400 SLR to a
day at the beach, I bring the point-and-shoot.  But to say that the SLR
is not good, is simply unjustified.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.