[Slightly OT] Q about configuration and revision management

[p_george]

Florent Pillet wrote:


> This said, I think that it is possible to keep CVS and solve most of the
> problem. All is a matter of a good user interface. CVS is an excellent
> and widely spread product, and I'd favor the development of a very good
> user interface for a CVS client which could also do admin stuff instead
> of redeveloping a whole new version management system from scratch.

I fully agree with you. With a good user interface, CVS is a sufficient
(almost perfect ?) tool. I was disappointed with cervisia, and after
switching to LinCVS, I don't have any problem with CVS any more.

There remains, as you noticed, the problem of *.kdevprj, which causes
some problems (along with the linker problems that arises from time to
time, which needs to manually reorder libs in Makefile.am's and in
.kdevprj).