[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cost/benefit of moving CVS server (on RH 7.3) from version 1.11.1p1

From: Mark D. Baushke
Subject: Re: cost/benefit of moving CVS server (on RH 7.3) from version 1.11.1p1 to version 1.11.21 or version 1.12.13? Migrate to Subversion? Migrate to Perforce?
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:32:34 -0700

Hash: SHA1

Kenneth Wolcott <address@hidden> writes:

>   What is cost/risks/benefit of moving CVS server (on Red Hat Linux 7.3)
> from version 1.11.1p1 to version 1.11.21 or version 1.12.13?

1.11.21 has lots of fixed bugs and otherwise looks just like 1.11.1p1
with the possible exception of moving tags. You will need to use the -B
switch to move or delete branch tags. The global -l option has been
removed, so you will get a warning if/when you try to use it. 

If you use :pserver:, then pserver may no longer be configured to run as
root via the $CVSROOT/CVSROOT/passwd file.

Version 1.12.13 has a number of new features and will work best if you
also move to a slightly different formatting method for the
commitinfo/verifymsg/loginfo/notify/taginfo triggers.

>   Of course I'm considering moving to a more recent version of Linux :-)

This is probably wise.

>   I have some developers who are strongly encouraging me to migrate from CVS
> to Subversion.

Newer versions of Subversion are getting better all the time. The number
of reports of repository corruptions is down a lot. I think that as more
folks exercise Subversion it will continue to improve.

For now, I remain a CVS developer and most of my energy is not on other
SCM systems.

>   Other developers strongly suggest that we migrate from CVS to Perforce.

Perforce is a commercial solution. As such, there will be up-front costs
associated with it. Conversion from existing CVS repositories to
Perforce is possible. Existing integrations you may have with your bug
tracking system and the like will also need to be addressed.

>   Has anyone here moved from CVS to Subversion and regretted it and moved
> back to CVS?
>   We are eager to move to an atomic commit functionality.

CVSNT uses a different kind of locking and may provide something like
atomic commit functionality if needed.

>   We are also eager to move to a versioned directory functionality to
> facilitate code restructuring.

This functionality is not available neither in CVS 1.11.x nor in CVS

>   There are those who belief that branching and merging are easier/more
> intuitive with Perforce and/or Subversion as compared with CVS.

There are those who believe that excessive branching leads to a support

I have seen folks use 'cheap branching' with some SCM systems and many
of the projects I have seen (mis)use this feature to have a branch per
bug fix and then a nightmare of promotion of bug fixes into integration

If you need to have fifty or more branches all in active use at the same
time, then CVS is not probably not the best tool for you.

        -- Mark
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]