On 04/29/13 00:00, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > 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"?
Honestly, I haven't played much with the alternatives...but usually I hear about how wonderful the branching and merging is in these other products...but that is NOT something we wish to be doing (see the presentations on the OpenBSD development process in the "papers" section of the website). Our model is "all development is done at HEAD", if something is committed, it is supposed to be better than what was there before (which in some cases, may be "nothing", in which case, the bar is more "it is in a state where at least the group can work on it"). Without bothering to dig up references...I recall there have been people singing the praises of how the various CVS alternatives try to handle the management of development teams, and OpenBSD developers (most of whom have "day jobs" related to their work) commenting along the lines of "doesn't work, still need real human leadership". I think a better question, considering the pain of conversion, is what features would give OpenBSD a clear gain by converting? Want to sell OpenBSD on an alternative? Find a product that was really crappy, switched development tools, and suddenly started rivaling OpenBSD for quality for no reason other than the switch of development tools. Nick.
