On 2013-04-20 23:32, Nick Holland wrote: > 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.
Out of curiosity; what are these "features"? > > 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. > -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
