On 04/20/13 03:42, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > Hi, > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or > not better than X - it's just a question. > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
Good, 'cause it does. :) > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or > something like git as other OSS projekts do? * "it works" * migrating - and not losing history is difficult. * migrating versioning systems is something you don't want to do every few weeks (or even every few years)...so you want to make sure it is really worth it if/when you do. SVN today? GIT next week? something else next year? Please, no. * Tolerable -- and in the case of opencvs, ideal -- license. * its glitches are hated, but known (the devil you know how to subdue, vs. the devil who beats the sh*t out of you) * relatively light weight -- runs fine on a 486, hp300, or on a modern, fast machine, fits nicely into existing distribution, easy to drop into a chroot. * Infrastructure exists. To change it all would require a really good reason. * it fits the OpenBSD development model. * Many of the "features" of alternatives are not desired in the OpenBSD development model. Obviously, it is possible to build a quality-focused product of Operating System magnitude using CVS. I don't think one can quite say CVS is the REASON for OpenBSD's quality, but it obviously hasn't hurt. Nick.
