On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 8:31 PM Австин Ким <freen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't argue with that, and obviously code quality is infinitely more > important than what SCM you use, but I feel you run the risk of turning off > potential new developers coming out of colleges and universities who cut > their > teeth on distributed SCM systems like hg and Git who might be taken aback > at > why the Project is still stuck with CVS (and again, I am not advocating for > Git; though if it isn't obvious by now I really believe OpenBSD developers > would honestly like Mercurial; to me it just seems consistent with > OpenBSD's > culture of cleanliness and simplicity). One can cut one's teeth on git and believe whatever one wants to believe but SCMs are not one-size-fits all. * Distributed does not mean better. * Centralized does not mean worse. * CVS does not mean "stuck." * Git does not mean smart. * Hg does not mean Au. Every project has its own requirements and should use the tools that fit best. *IF* the OpenBSD devs ever wants to change SCMs--I said **IF**--then I root for Subversion. Subversion offers the following advantages: 1. CVS's closest relative; fixes all of CVS's shortcomings. 2. Very easy to learn and use. You practically can't screw it up. 3. Immutable history, i.e., SAFE to use. 4. Handles a giant repository with ease. (Many git projects fracture into numerous repositories to work around git limitations, so you lose atomic commits and get a maintenance headache instead.) 5. Sparse checkouts. 6. Versioned properties attached to files and directories (git can't version directories). 7. Follow history through copies, moves, and renames. 8. Coded in C89. Very few dependencies. 9. Apache license. Not BSD but much closer than any GPL revision. I'm sure you've heard bad things about Subversion. These old myths and facts stopped being true a decade ago.
