Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 07:12:25 -0800 (PST) From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@tutopia.com> To: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVS removal from the base Message-ID: <1323616345.18741.YahooMailClassic@web113508.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <201112111439.pBBEdXVI064559@fire.js.berklix.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0A--- Dom 11/12/11, Julian H. Stacey <jhs@berklix.com> ha scritto:=0A...= =0A> > I have to say I am surprised by all the people that=0A> > still use = CVS (for their own good reasons).=0A> > =0A> > It still would be helpful if= cvs users could evaluate=0A> > OpenCVS: it's been experimental for ages no= w. It does=0A> > seem to have some advantage (other than the license)=0A> >= in that it's smaller and better maintained (or at=0A> > least not too dead= ).=0A> =0A> Did you test it with =0A> =A0=A0=A0 cd /usr/src/release ; make = release=0A> =0A=0ATBH, I don't use CVS at all. I learned to use SVN first= =0Aand for the things I needed CVS was pretty similar to SVN=0Abut pretty o= bnoxious when trying to check out the history=0Adue to the lack of atomic c= ommits.=0A=0AI would prefer to just use the same SVN server for=0Aeverythin= g.=0A=0AOpenCVS is an intermediate step, at least acceptable=0Afor GPL clea= ning purposes, for people that just can't=0Amove to SVN right away. Still S= VN is much better and=0Aonce we move we will not look back (IMHO).=0A=0APed= ro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1323616345.18741.YahooMailClassic>