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

Re: [E-devel] cvs, servers and stuff.

Kim Woelders wrote:
> It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
> limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
> branches or anything resembling changeset management.
> I think CVS amply provides the features we need. It's simple and robust.
> It's far from perfect, but as Michael says - It's the devil we know.
> I don't believe changing SCM will make any significant difference to the
> problems that we appear to have, except possibly on a very short term.
> Even in the unlikely case that some SCM system is twice(four/ten/...
> times) as fast as CVS the problem we have will resurface if/when the
> user base grows accordingly.
> Unless there happens to be an SCM system that is just incredibly more
> efficient than CVS I also think that we would make a change for the
> wrong reason. Changing SCM system should IMO be done only if we
> want/need particular features not available in CVS.
> In the unfortunate case that it is concluded that we want to switch away
> from CVS I hope it will be to git. Not because I know it from personal
> experience, but simply because it is used by linux and xorg, which are
> two projects I respect.
> /Kim

Well said Kim.

I agree completely.  I'd like to see a multi-connection test of cvs vs
svn, but I also won't promise to set it up myself. :)  It was nice of
raster to open this debate, but we have running servers with cvs (and
webvc) and should really have a compelling reason to move.  As you can
see, I'm not much of a fan of change for change's sake. ;)