Re: [Qemu-devel] What does code_copy_enabled do?

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

I did not really want to continue this discussion, but then, I really 
cannot let certain statements slip by.  *sigh*

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Paul Brook wrote:

> > > Any news on the possible cvs->svn migration?
> >
> > To be perfectly honest, IMO there is little point moving an existing
> > project from CVS to SVN.
> 
> I disagree.  CVS has several fairly fundamental flaws (no global 
> revision IDs, unable to move files, and more subtle problems with 
> branches/tags). SVN fixes these, and in most cases works as a direct 
> drop-in replacement for CVS.

Granted, SVN is better than CVS.  But they did not even begin to tackle 
the fundamental shortcomings.

> While I can see that distributed revision control systems do enable some 
> interesting possibilities, there's certainly no clear winner.

There might not be a clear winner, but that's only because they are 
about equally "good".  Using this argument to choose an inferiour system, 
such as svn, which is not only slower, bigger, has a lousy 
tagging/annotating/merging support, but actively discourages good 
workflows, is, uhm, not so wise.

> All of them seem to have have fairly serious issues with either 
> usability, portability, scalability, and/or require learning a whole new 
> workflow.

Usability: uhm, no.  There are enough short tutorials to show that Hg and 
Git are pretty easy to learn.

Portability: uhm, no.  Hg never had an issue there, Git no longer does.

Scalability: I do beg your pardon?  Hg might not be as scalable as Git, 
but SVN and CVS positively *suck* in that respect.

Whole new workflow: uhm, no.  You do not _need_ to use the bells and 
whistles of Hg or Git, if you really are that resistant.

You can just update & add & commit as before (with Git, you just need to 
substitute "pull" for "update").  The only difference is that you push to 
the "official" server from time to time.

> I'm sure advocates of each system will claim that their system is the 
> "best", but I remain unconvinced.

I'm sure you remain unconvinced, if only to make a point.  As for "best": 
I would not claim that either Hg or Git are "best".  My preference is 
clear.

But if you have 5 options, 2 of them just shine, and the other 3 are bad, 
do you really pick a bad apple, because "there is no best"?

> SVN may not have the bells and whistles of some of the more exotic 
> systems. However it is is well tested proven technology, and IMO 
> universally better than CVS.

It is well tested and proven, granted.  As a version control system.  But 
in terms of a source code management tool, it just leaves to be desired.

Ciao,
Dscho