Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:29:21 +0100 From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <20060306102921.GC21025@tara.freenix.org> In-Reply-To: <20060305084713.GA97196@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <20060304173917.X61086@fledge.watson.org> <20060304180131.69997.qmail@web32709.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060305084713.GA97196@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Divacky Roman: > I do agree that cvs has its drawbacks but there is OpenCVS (cvs > reimplementation by openbsd folks) which seems to be actively maintained and > its authors promised things like atomic commits etc. When ? Just having atomic commits is not enough. If you take the HEAD of cvs right now (1.12.*), you get a "commit id" generated for all commits. > I think that switch from gnu cvs to opencvs is painless and should be done > (once the opencvs is in usable state) because VCS migration is too heavy to switch to just CVS+epsilon. > 1) its actively maintained > 2) its BSD licensed > 3) might have some features gnu cvs doesnt have "might" and "when" are more important and they kill opencvs right now. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060306102921.GC21025>