Hi, I did not really want to continue this discussion, but then, I really cannot let certain statements slip by. *sigh*
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008, Paul Brook wrote: > > > Any news on the possible cvs->svn migration? > > > > To be perfectly honest, IMO there is little point moving an existing > > project from CVS to SVN. > > I disagree. CVS has several fairly fundamental flaws (no global > revision IDs, unable to move files, and more subtle problems with > branches/tags). SVN fixes these, and in most cases works as a direct > drop-in replacement for CVS. Granted, SVN is better than CVS. But they did not even begin to tackle the fundamental shortcomings. > While I can see that distributed revision control systems do enable some > interesting possibilities, there's certainly no clear winner. There might not be a clear winner, but that's only because they are about equally "good". Using this argument to choose an inferiour system, such as svn, which is not only slower, bigger, has a lousy tagging/annotating/merging support, but actively discourages good workflows, is, uhm, not so wise. > All of them seem to have have fairly serious issues with either > usability, portability, scalability, and/or require learning a whole new > workflow. Usability: uhm, no. There are enough short tutorials to show that Hg and Git are pretty easy to learn. Portability: uhm, no. Hg never had an issue there, Git no longer does. Scalability: I do beg your pardon? Hg might not be as scalable as Git, but SVN and CVS positively *suck* in that respect. Whole new workflow: uhm, no. You do not _need_ to use the bells and whistles of Hg or Git, if you really are that resistant. You can just update & add & commit as before (with Git, you just need to substitute "pull" for "update"). The only difference is that you push to the "official" server from time to time. > I'm sure advocates of each system will claim that their system is the > "best", but I remain unconvinced. I'm sure you remain unconvinced, if only to make a point. As for "best": I would not claim that either Hg or Git are "best". My preference is clear. But if you have 5 options, 2 of them just shine, and the other 3 are bad, do you really pick a bad apple, because "there is no best"? > SVN may not have the bells and whistles of some of the more exotic > systems. However it is is well tested proven technology, and IMO > universally better than CVS. It is well tested and proven, granted. As a version control system. But in terms of a source code management tool, it just leaves to be desired. Ciao, Dscho
