Should Quesa switch its version control system?

[James W. W. <os...@jw...>]

Recently, in the thread "Buffer overrun in 64 bit build", some people  
expressed interest in switching Quesa from CVS to some other version  
control system.   I thought we should discuss it in a separate thread,  
so that anyone who subscribes to the list but doesn't read every  
message would have a fair chance to see it and offer an opinion.

Besides CVS, SourceForge supports Subversion, Git, Mercurial, and  
Bazaar.  All of these are newer, and at least in some ways better,  
than CVS.

Git, Mercurial, and Bazaar are examples of "distributed revision  
control systems".  This means that each repository contains the  
complete history.  Therefore you can do many things, such as looking  
at a log or comparing different versions of a file, without using a  
network.  This also makes it easier to work on a big overhaul locally  
without sending each change to the central server, but still having  
the advantages of version control.

Those who prefer not to live on the command line may want to  
investigate GUI clients.  I don't have a complete list of these.  I  
know that on Windows, Subversion and Mercurial have popular clients  
named TortoiseSVN and TortoiseHG.  On the Mac, I wrote a client for  
Mercurial called MacMercurial.  I know there's a Subversion client  
called svnX, but I don't know if that's the most popular.

In the past, we were somewhat tied to the Mac CVS Pro client by its  
special ability to handle Mac resource forks.  As far as I know, all  
the necessary resource files in the Quesa tree have been converted  
to .r text files or some other safe form.