[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: When will be CVS replaced by modern version control system?

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:08:19AM +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:41:58AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:12:45 +0100
> > Adam Tkac <atkac redhat com> wrote:
> > 
> > Replacing a VCS for the fun of it is pretty pointless.  Can you
> > elaborate on a workflow you would like to see that CVS is not suited
> > to?  Right now, CVS works fine for what we do, which is mostly editing
> > spec files.


 My work is searching and fixing bugs, rebasing, reviewing, testing
 and backporting patches. The spec files are decoration around this
 work... Sorry, but editing spec files is 0.001% of my work on

> > I am by no means a proponent of CVS.  I think it sucks.  But we have no
> > _usecase_ for a different VCS at the moment.
> > 
> It's not replacement for fun. Yes, CVS works and I believe it will
> work to end of universe. But question is if We have something better
> than CVS. And We have. There're some common problems (yes, CVS and
> SVN suffer :) )

 Few notes:

 * many people around Fedora are still not well educated about new
   content tracking tools. So we are not ready for the change.

 * many people still think about VCS as about a patches/source code
   archive -- that's very wrong. A good content tracker is a
   __development tool__. For example with GIT you can do non-linear
   development, rebasing, prototyping, bug bsearch, easily
   send/receive patches by mail, generate customized changelogs,
   scripting, off-line work, ...

 * __unfortunately__, we don't maintain source code in our VCS! We use
   it for *.patch files + commit messages. It means you can't use all
   modern features -- just because GIT, Hg, ... are designed for work
   with source code (unlike Quilt, StGIT).


 Karel Zak  <kzak redhat com>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]