J. Mayer wrote: [snip] > 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 ? 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...
Not exactly a study, but www.linux-mips.org moved a fairly complex CVS repository to GIT, and replaced the original CVS access with the git-cvs daemon. No were/are no known inconsistencies. Thiemo
