On 2013-04-20 12:15, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack <mail...@alokat.org> 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. :) > > > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do? > > > > Regards, > > fritjof > > > > > > my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us, > developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's > less knowledge about other version control systems. > > Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an > advantage if there was ever any repo corruption.
Some other CVS keeps checksums of every commit, and every commit contains the checksum of the last commit + this commits diff. This helps *prevent* corruption (or at least prevents it from spreading). I think that beats human-readable files to manually find corruptions (that may well spread). > > You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which > they don't even include in the base OS ;-) > -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
