On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 01:10:23PM +0200, Anders Andersson wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 7:13 AM Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.pl> wrote: > > [...] > > > > In contrast to that, cvs is easy enough to be quickly understood and > > used by oneself. > > This is a silly argument though, and even incorrect. Git is not github > or gitlab. One could easily have made a similar "cvshub" website.
Right, it is not, but at the same time I cannot recall reading a comment from git user who uses git locally all the time, without interacting with git*.com ... AFAICT git is used mostly to sync source with remote repo, but of course I may be wrong because I do not use it. > Git is a lot easier to administrate as a single user than CVS is, > since the repo is completely self-contained in the project folder > while CVS needs its own infrastructure set up in order to get started. > However, with git it is also trivial to use local or remote servers if > necessary - without involving a "paid admin". My remark about "paid admins and developers" was meant to say that I do not believe a single person could pull off a gig like doing equivalent of, say, github. There is a lot of functionality in there and whole lot of effort in a kitchen (doing backups, taking care of security and performance, having new ideas, replacing servers as they fall and so on). The people using git(hub|lab) are being served the steak without having to grow and butcher their own hog. And I think that majority of git users are in fact users of git(hub|lab). And when they say they use git, they are in fact saying that they are using git(hub|lab) without getting into details. > I really don't see where you're getting this from, or you have > forgotten that CVS has a separate repository that must be > administrated. I can have many repositories and select between them by setting CVSROOT to the right directory on a disk. I think you may be conflating cvs use with need to setting up some service and accessing via the net, even if only through the localhost. But I do nothing like that. I just mkdir, cvs init and this is mostly it. No need for big time administration, web interfaces or whatnot. I edit the files with emacs and when I am done, I can either save to disk and say "cvs commit" in a shell or do the equivalent in editor. One more thing about simplicity of cvs. On my computer (running Parrot OS ATM) I do: $: apropos -s 1 cvs | wc -l 13 So, this many manpages to read about cvs. Whereas for git, I have: $: apropos -s 1 git|wc -l 165 Some of those pages are things like perlgit, which is not really required to know. But: $: (apropos -s 1 cvs | cut -f 1 -d' ' | xargs man| grep -v '^$' | wc -l) 3178 or if one prefers reading cvs manual in info: $: info --subnodes -o - cvs| grep -v '^$' | wc -l 10270 but for git: $: (apropos -s 1 git | cut -f 1 -d' ' | xargs man| grep -v '^$' |wc -l) 43553 So, the size of things to read is 3000/10000 non-empty lines of text for cvs vs 43000 for git. I would say, cvs is simpler to learn than git. -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
