On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Nido wrote:
>> Come on, it is fucking inefficient. The way it checks out *empty
>> directories*
>> and then garbage-collects them at the end of an update is beyond stupid.
>
> Not that i particularly care; but isn't git incapable of checking out
> empty directories?
There's also ample room for improvements in some of the algorithms cvs
currently use. It positively SUCKS at merging stuff. It can't even work with
its own keywords properly.
I no longer count the number of times I've had a *conflict* after a merge
on code I committed myself in another tree, just
> Come on, it is fucking inefficient. The way it checks out *empty
> directories*
> and then garbage-collects them at the end of an update is beyond stupid.
Not that i particularly care; but isn't git incapable of checking out
empty directories?
Besides that, it is perfectly possible to use git y
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:17:30PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:16:12PM +0100, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
> >Pretty much every single new revision control system can import/export
> >from CVS, so use whatever you want...
>
> I tried git cvsimport on OpenBSD'
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:39:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Manure alert!
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:16:39PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:11:21PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > >What is wrong with CVS? And no I am not talking about the h
On 06/23/09 18:58, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Blah blah blah blah
That is clearly self describing...
You just like listening to yourself talk. Shut up.
Pooh, pooh Mr "Not Invented Here" and "We didn't learned that in our BSD
Kindergarten".
Hannah is clearly just informative (as always!) an
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Daniel Bolgheroni
> wrote:
>
> > 3. What I should not question in an OpenBSD mailing list?
>
> The development process. It's a good bet that the people who have
> been developing OpenBSD for 10 years know more about how
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Daniel Bolgheroni
wrote:
> 1. Why we use cvs?
It works [enough].
> 2. Why we don't WANT to use svn, git, etc.?
See above. Also, why would we want to? (Don't answer that, you're wrong.)
> 3. What I should not question in an OpenBSD mailing list?
The developme
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Fernando Quintero wrote:
> Hello list,
>
> I have a question:
>
> I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
> distributed software "with best performance", but really i don't know much
> about it.
> There are some technicals or philosophicals reaso
>>[...]
>
>>To assume that it is not superiour in the particular application
>>to which it is being put is also ridiculous. Having 1000 extra
>>features you don't use and will never use is not an advantage.
>
>If one hasn't tried it out, it's difficult to assume one would never use
>features like d
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I used git twice. Once I lost hours worth of work and the second time
it munged instead of merged the code. No thanks. If it works for you
great, now stop evangelizing some retarded versioning system that will
never, ever, ever, ever, ever be used in OpenBSD.
since
On 23 Jun 2009, at 13:17, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:16:12PM +0100, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
Pretty much every single new revision control system can import/
export
from CVS, so use whatever you want...
I tried git cvsimport on OpenBSD's tree and it failed, alas.
I used git twice. Once I lost hours worth of work and the second time
it munged instead of merged the code. No thanks. If it works for you
great, now stop evangelizing some retarded versioning system that will
never, ever, ever, ever, ever be used in OpenBSD.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 03:16:59PM
Hi,
can we please stop this ?
Some devs are aware of dvcs advantages, some use them locally for their
own developments, some share things between some devs using dvcs public
repos, some thinks that CVS has some weaknesses (which *might* be adressed in
opencvs, once it is feature-compliant with gnu
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:39:41AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>Manure alert!
>On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:16:39PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:11:21PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> >What is wrong with CVS? And no I am not talking about the hypotheticals
>
Manure alert!
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:16:39PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:11:21PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> >What is wrong with CVS? And no I am not talking about the hypotheticals
> >and some bugs that exist in the current code (that can also be
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:11:42AM -0400, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
>[...]
>To assume that it is not superiour in the particular application
>to which it is being put is also ridiculous. Having 1000 extra
>features you don't use and will never use is not an advantage.
If one hasn't tried i
Hi!
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:48:33PM +0200, Artur Grabowski wrote:
>Mic J writes:
But to
imply that CVS is better than (or equal to) Mercurial or Git is a bit
ridiculous :)
>Mercurial and Git are crap.
Why do you think so? My experiences with git are quite good.
>[...]
>>Fr
Hi!
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 09:58:04PM -0500, Eugene Prodeguene wrote:
>[...]
>http://www.openbsd.org/why-cvs.html
>Because none of the above mentioned will allow for 70+ developers to
>update ~1.2GB/~140,000 files of source code, allow anonymous checkouts,
>has an available web based interface
Hi!
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 02:11:21PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>What is wrong with CVS? And no I am not talking about the hypotheticals
>and some bugs that exist in the current code (that can also be easily
>worked around).
- It's *slow* (once you've seen git's speed, both cvs and svn are
Hi!
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:16:12PM +0100, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>Pretty much every single new revision control system can import/export
>from CVS, so use whatever you want...
I tried git cvsimport on OpenBSD's tree and it failed, alas.
cvs2svn doesn't grok some peculiarities of OpenBSD's
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 07:13:51PM -0700, Mike Swanson wrote:
> Paul M wrote:
> >On 23/06/2009, at 6:44 AM, Fernando Quintero wrote:
> >
> >>Hello list,
> >>
> >>I have a question:
> >>
> >>I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
> >>distributed software "with best perf
Mic J writes:
>>> But to
>>> imply that CVS is better than (or equal to) Mercurial or Git is a bit
>>> ridiculous :)
Mercurial and Git are crap.
>> Because none of the above mentioned will allow for 70+ developers to
>> update ~1.2GB/~140,000 files of source code, allow anonymous checkouts,
>>
I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
distributed software "with best performance", but really i don't know
much
about it.
There are some technicals or philosophicals reasons why the OpenBSD
repository does not change to something other t
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 07:13:51PM -0700, Mike Swanson wrote:
> Paul M wrote:
>> On 23/06/2009, at 6:44 AM, Fernando Quintero wrote:
>>
>>> Hello list,
>>>
>>> I have a question:
>>>
>>> I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
>>> distributed software "with best perform
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009, Mike Swanson wrote:
Paul M wrote:
On 23/06/2009, at 6:44 AM, Fernando Quintero wrote:
Hello list,
I have a question:
I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
distributed software "with best performance", but really i don't know much
about it.
Paul M wrote:
On 23/06/2009, at 6:44 AM, Fernando Quintero wrote:
Hello list,
I have a question:
I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
distributed software "with best performance", but really i don't know
much
about it.
There are some technicals or philosophic
On 23/06/2009, at 6:44 AM, Fernando Quintero wrote:
Hello list,
I have a question:
I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
distributed software "with best performance", but really i don't know
much
about it.
There are some technicals or philosophicals reasons why
Pretty much every single new revision control system can import/export
from CVS, so use whatever you want...
-anil
On 22 Jun 2009, at 19:44, Fernando Quintero wrote:
Hello list,
I have a question:
I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
distributed software "wi
If it ain't broken don't fix it.
What is wrong with CVS? And no I am not talking about the hypotheticals
and some bugs that exist in the current code (that can also be easily
worked around).
I have used just about all versioning systems, including ones that have
the price tag of islands in the p
Hello list,
I have a question:
I was reading about version control systems and i found a lot of the
distributed software "with best performance", but really i don't know much
about it.
There are some technicals or philosophicals reasons why the OpenBSD
repository does not change to something othe
31 matches
Mail list logo
