Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13-05-2007 21:58]: > On 5/13/07, Radoslaw Zielinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jan Rekorajski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [13-05-2007 20:20]: > > > We all know that CVS sucks, less for some (me included) and more for > > All version control systems suck. CVS just sucks least for this kind of > > repository. > Why?
Why what? > > > others. But, if we want to switch to anything else, we have to change > > > the repository layout from flat SPECS/SOURCES to dir-per-package, > > > because any other CMS won't handle such layout (you can imagine how > > > would SVN repo look like - a ~milion directories, and GIT just doesn't > > > scale - I did a test on SPECS and got a monstrosity). > > This clearly shows problems with *other* VC systems. There is no point > > in switching. It would create more problems than it'd solve. > What are the problems? Off the top of my head: - excessive metadata (CVS/Entries is just a few dozen bytes per file) - $Log$ - existing tools / macros / aliases / one liners / whatever We have tamed CVS over the years and know how to deal with its shortcomings. The only real unsolved problem is lack of "cvs mv", but this could be changed with far less work than changing VCS, if someone cared enough. > The so called "problems" are the rare > situations where you need to grep through ALL the spec files. This [...] If you know the answer (or so you think), what's the point of asking? -- Radosław Zieliński <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpamBAuDSE29.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
