On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, Tom Russo wrote:
I read the same newsletter you did. Nothing I saw there implied that they would break our CVS repository, but that was the one thing I was concerned about. If they do break it by moving it to SVN I'm cool, but I'll be miffed if they move it to Git unbidden.
There was a long-running discussion in a group near me at work: Git vs. Mercurial. I don't recall for sure which one won out but I think it was Git. I've heard good things about Git from people I know and trust. At this point I'd rather head straight to Git from CVS instead of SVN. I'm the admin of several CVS and SVN repositories at work and use SVN on a daily basis. Some of the things I've just read about ease of branching/merging and ease of sharing patch sets between developers using Git really got my attention. SVN does not make such things easy (nor does CVS). For those that don't know much about it, here's a small bit about various revision control systems: Revision control for individual files: RCS: Keeps history in <filename>,v file. Central Repository (poor merging): CVS: Tree of files, revisions done per file. Uses RCS underneath. SVN: Tree of files, revisions done per entire tree. Commands almost identical with CVS. DVCS - Distributed Version Control Systems (what most are switching to these days): Git: Mercurial: Bazaar: Git allows working offline, named changesets, sending patches between developers and merging, then deciding which to push out later. It's also the one used by the Linux kernel developers since the BitKeeper agreement (commercial product) went south. We'd have a bit to learn with Git, but I'm game to do so and to write up new docs for it. My kids are already using Git but I'm not! -- Curt, WE7U. http://wetnet.net/~we7u Lotto: A tax on people who are bad at math. - unknown Windows: Microsoft's tax on computer illiterates. - WE7U. _______________________________________________ Xastir-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xastir.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xastir-dev
