On 9/17/07, J. Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 23:14 +0200, Luca wrote: > > > > since I mentionned "you should have used Git", I'll repeat: > > > > this commit was not disruptive to any of the Git users, and will > > > > never be. > > > > > > > > Evolve, or prepare to be assimilated into the Collective... > > > > > > Both the qemu.org and the Savannah project page only mention CVS. If > > > there are better ways to get the code then inform your users how to > > > use that. > > > http://brick.kernel.dk/git/?p=qemu.git;a=summary > > It's tracking QEMU CVS; you're right that it's not mentioned anywhere > > on the site (AFAICS). > > You can also DIY with git-cvsimport; see e.g. > > http://chneukirchen.org/blog/archive/2006/04/tracking-the-ruby-cvs-with-git.html > > Another point is CVS is an industry standard. It has many drawbacks but > is prooven to do its job as specified in a very reliable way. For now, > not such a thing for git, afaik. If it ever become the new industry > standard, after having prooven its reliability and long term stability, > then you may be able to expect everyone to use it. > Did anyone has done a long term comparison of CVS and git running on two > copies of the > same production repository and have made sure that any extraction at any > time of any data (ie, checkout in the present and any date in the past, > diffs, ...) of the two gives exactly the same result?
Actually CVS doesn't provide _any_ guarantee about data integrity. GIT does. So... > Please show me > such studies and I may reconsider my position... If not, you can always > use it, closing your eyes and praying for everything to be OK... ...yes, I'm willing to trust GIT over CVS any time ;) Luca