Re: conversion to git

[Russ Allbery]

Ralf Corsepius <address@hidden> writes:
> On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 00:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> 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 subversion a temporary and already outdated wart in SCM history ;)

*shrug*.  :)

>> 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?

Absolutely.  Significant progress.  It's been a major improvement in
efficiency, usability, and maintainability to switch CVS repositories to
Subversion and I would never look back at this point.  CVS has so many
bugs, problems, misfeatures, and broken interfaces and protocols compared
to current version control software that I would not recommend its use to
anyone who has available alternatives.

Just having a sane network protocol is worth a lot by itself, even if
there were no other improvements.

-- 
Russ Allbery (address@hidden)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>