On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 03:00:04PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:46, Darrin Chandler wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:05:38PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > >> Well, git just has a different set of bugs than cvs. > > ... > >> I would deem cvs MORE painful than git on average, it's just that > >> we're more accustomed to the pain... > > > > Yes, this is right. And also there would be a price to pay in lost > > productivity in switching to a new system. To those very familiar with > > CVS and not very familiar with Git (or hg, et al), the benefits of > > switching are nebulous and uncertain, while the cost is very real. > > I will add a somewhat controversial viewpoint to the mix. Because cvs > makes working with branches and large diffs so painful, it forces > developers to split their work into smaller pieces. In OpenBSD, > that's a good thing. Keeping your changes in a private fork is > difficult, which is good. It means fewer private forks. If every > developer could maintain a branch with some private tweaks, and not > bother integrating their changes or fixing regressions, progress would > grind to a halt. [I have mentioned this to people before and their > eyes just about popped out of their head. I don't expect > everyone to agree.]
++1 here. My only experience with a project that moved from cvs to git was that a) the number of brances exploded and b) the number of repositories containing branches exploded and were erratically interconnected. This resulted in many rotting branches, many private playgrounds and far less incentive to move forward together. I particularly enjoyed messages containing lists of random hex numbers that one should revert, merge with or sacrifice chickens over if one could only find the appropriate repository. OK, one experience but it left an indelible impression. :-) I think git gives you a lot of rope. Which people use to hang themselves (and others!) as often as they use it to build a safety net. ... Ken > > github is all about social coding and they have a point. But many > of the things they enable are considered antisocial in the OpenBSD > development process.
