Re: conversion to git

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 21:01 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> >> I think in practice adoption drives portability more than the other way
> >> around.  I don't think CVS became popular because it was portable;
> 
> > Well, I think it became popular, because it had been and still IS lean,
> > simple to use/administrate and matches the demands of most projects.
> 
> I'm fairly certain that's not the case.  The primary advantage of CVS that
> got people to switch to it was that it did considerably more than RCS and
> had considerably more available administrative features and supported
> multiuser development (in other words, was much fatter and was much more
> complex to use, but did more).
Well, I disagree, but you've just pretty nicely described why I find
subversion a temporary and already outdated wart in SCM history ;)

> As soon as something came along that was reasonably polished, did even
> more, and was still free software, CVS started declining fast.  A lot of
> projects had a love/hate relationship with CVS long before there even was
> a replacement, and some free software projects (Perl, for instance) even
> went with proprietary systems because CVS was so limited.  It's almost
> impossible to find new projects these days that start with CVS instead of
> at least Subversion.
True, but do you feel subversion is progress?

As a user, I have to disagree. subversion has not been progress. It's
different, and has different pros and cons, but that's essentially all. 

It's what I feel is the reason why I think people still are striving for
a better SCM.

Ralf