Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:54:41 -0800 From: Derek Kulinski <takeda@takeda.tk> To: "Chris H" <chris#@1command.com> Cc: FreeBSD <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Does / Is anyone maintaining CVS for FreeBSD? Message-ID: <148920333.20121231235441@takeda.tk> In-Reply-To: <f7a783bba9425aeaf67d94056b49f272.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> References: <50E1D012.1040004@missouri.edu> <20121231175808.GA1399@glenbarber.us> <6817fb4c15659b194cc658b1dfa58a31.authenticated@ultimatedns.net> <CADLo83-RtuRE58HORn8ocqRVtcF3ZANJoHh1D8TO=aucwywbQw@mail.gmail.com> <f7a783bba9425aeaf67d94056b49f272.authenticated@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Monday, December 31, 2012, 12:40:47 PM, you wrote: > That's what I was afraid I would hear. Recently, I was informed by SF.NET, > that my account would be upgraded, and all the projects I have, which all > use CVS, would be "upgraded" to SVN (which renders them useless). When I > asked why, they told me because CVS was so old. To which I stated: > Indeed, CVS is _quite_ old, and so is TCP/IP. Yet no one can seem live > without it. > Sigh... > IM(NS)HO; SVN is an inferior RCS created so Windows users wouldn't feel > left out. > Are there _any_ CVS servers/trunks/tree's left? If so, how _current_ are > they? Chris, few years back I decided myself to try SVN after extensively using CVS. I was scared that many of existing scripts will become broken. And that actually was true, but SVN already had all the tools that I used. In fact it offered more functionality and also creating hooks was easier. CVS started as a hack that was about putting together RCS tools. I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that it started first as a script that was simply calling them. SVN is a tool that was primarily based on CVS. The idea was to fix all the CVS issues that resulted from its RCS origins and I think they succeeded. On top of that the SVN is much simpler to use and set up. I cannot really recall anything that CVS offer which SVN doesn't. In my opinion a single feature of svn is good enough to switch from cvs to svn. That feature is atomic commit, and there many more. For example branches and tags are far easier to understand and far more reliable. I recently (well, kind of since it was 2 years ago) tried git and while I was initially set against it due to how much more complicated it is with time I learned to love its features and the workflow that it imposes suites me well. That said I would totally understand you being upset if FreeBSD would decide to switch to git, since despite its benefits that is a huge change, and would definitely be hard for people to adjust. -- Best regards, Derek mailto:takeda@takeda.tk -- Hit any user to continue.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?148920333.20121231235441>