Le 04/29/13 06:03, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera a écrit :
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).
I ran into a hash collision once, using git rebase.
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]
--
Thomas de Grivel
"I must plunge into the water of doubt again and again."
