Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On 2013-05-01, Thomas de Grivel wrote: > Le 04/29/13 06:03, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera a écrit : >> On 2013-04-20 12:15, Stuart Henderson wrote: >>> On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: Hi, first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not >> better than X - it's just a question. If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something >> like git as other OSS projekts do? Regards, fritjof >>> >>> my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us, >>> developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's >>> less knowledge about other version control systems. >>> >>> Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an >>> advantage if there was ever any repo corruption. >> >> Some other CVS keeps checksums of every commit, and every commit contains >> the checksum of the last commit + this commits diff. This helps *prevent* >> corruption (or at least prevents it from spreading). >> I think that beats human-readable files to manually find corruptions >> (that may well spread). > > I ran into a hash collision once, using git rebase. Like I said, "between us, developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's less knowledge about other version control systems." ;) Out of interest, what happens in this case? does git notice and ask you to make some silly change to avoid the collision (tweak whitespace or something), or does it cause havoc?
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
Le 04/29/13 06:03, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera a écrit : On 2013-04-20 12:15, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: Hi, first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not better than X - it's just a question. If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do? Regards, fritjof my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us, developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's less knowledge about other version control systems. Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an advantage if there was ever any repo corruption. Some other CVS keeps checksums of every commit, and every commit contains the checksum of the last commit + this commits diff. This helps *prevent* corruption (or at least prevents it from spreading). I think that beats human-readable files to manually find corruptions (that may well spread). I ran into a hash collision once, using git rebase. You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which they don't even include in the base OS ;-) -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature] -- Thomas de Grivel "I must plunge into the water of doubt again and again."
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On 04/29/13 00:00, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote: > On 2013-04-20 23:32, Nick Holland wrote: >> On 04/20/13 03:42, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or >> > not better than X - it's just a question. >> > >> > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) >> >> Good, 'cause it does. :) >> >> > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or >> > something like git as other OSS projekts do? >> >> * "it works" >> * migrating - and not losing history is difficult. >> * migrating versioning systems is something you don't want to do every >> few weeks (or even every few years)...so you want to make sure it is >> really worth it if/when you do. SVN today? GIT next week? something >> else next year? Please, no. >> * Tolerable -- and in the case of opencvs, ideal -- license. >> * its glitches are hated, but known (the devil you know how to subdue, >> vs. the devil who beats the sh*t out of you) >> * relatively light weight -- runs fine on a 486, hp300, or on a modern, >> fast machine, fits nicely into existing distribution, easy to drop into >> a chroot. >> * Infrastructure exists. To change it all would require a really good >> reason. >> * it fits the OpenBSD development model. >> * Many of the "features" of alternatives are not desired in the OpenBSD >> development model. > > Out of curiosity; what are these "features"? Honestly, I haven't played much with the alternatives...but usually I hear about how wonderful the branching and merging is in these other products...but that is NOT something we wish to be doing (see the presentations on the OpenBSD development process in the "papers" section of the website). Our model is "all development is done at HEAD", if something is committed, it is supposed to be better than what was there before (which in some cases, may be "nothing", in which case, the bar is more "it is in a state where at least the group can work on it"). Without bothering to dig up references...I recall there have been people singing the praises of how the various CVS alternatives try to handle the management of development teams, and OpenBSD developers (most of whom have "day jobs" related to their work) commenting along the lines of "doesn't work, still need real human leadership". I think a better question, considering the pain of conversion, is what features would give OpenBSD a clear gain by converting? Want to sell OpenBSD on an alternative? Find a product that was really crappy, switched development tools, and suddenly started rivaling OpenBSD for quality for no reason other than the switch of development tools. Nick.
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On 2013-04-20 12:15, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > > Hi, > > > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not better than X - it's just a question. > > > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) > > > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do? > > > > Regards, > > fritjof > > > > > > my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us, > developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's > less knowledge about other version control systems. > > Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an > advantage if there was ever any repo corruption. Some other CVS keeps checksums of every commit, and every commit contains the checksum of the last commit + this commits diff. This helps *prevent* corruption (or at least prevents it from spreading). I think that beats human-readable files to manually find corruptions (that may well spread). > > You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which > they don't even include in the base OS ;-) > -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On 2013-04-20 23:32, Nick Holland wrote: > On 04/20/13 03:42, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > > Hi, > > > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or > > not better than X - it's just a question. > > > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) > > Good, 'cause it does. :) > > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or > > something like git as other OSS projekts do? > > * "it works" > * migrating - and not losing history is difficult. > * migrating versioning systems is something you don't want to do every > few weeks (or even every few years)...so you want to make sure it is > really worth it if/when you do. SVN today? GIT next week? something > else next year? Please, no. > * Tolerable -- and in the case of opencvs, ideal -- license. > * its glitches are hated, but known (the devil you know how to subdue, > vs. the devil who beats the sh*t out of you) > * relatively light weight -- runs fine on a 486, hp300, or on a modern, > fast machine, fits nicely into existing distribution, easy to drop into > a chroot. > * Infrastructure exists. To change it all would require a really good > reason. > * it fits the OpenBSD development model. > * Many of the "features" of alternatives are not desired in the OpenBSD > development model. Out of curiosity; what are these "features"? > > Obviously, it is possible to build a quality-focused product of > Operating System magnitude using CVS. I don't think one can quite say > CVS is the REASON for OpenBSD's quality, but it obviously hasn't hurt. > > Nick. > -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
> On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: >> Hi, >> >> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not >> better than X - it's just a question. >> >> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) >> >> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something >> like git as other OSS projekts do? >> >> Regards, >> fritjof >> >> > > my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us, > developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's > less knowledge about other version control systems. > > Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an > advantage if there was ever any repo corruption. > > You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which > they don't even include in the base OS ;-) > > Amen. The fact that I now have to install subversion and all its bloat dependencies to do anything in the other BSD I use will me making it so I now do a lot more with OpenBSD. -- ESP
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On 04/20/13 03:42, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > Hi, > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or > not better than X - it's just a question. > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) Good, 'cause it does. :) > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or > something like git as other OSS projekts do? * "it works" * migrating - and not losing history is difficult. * migrating versioning systems is something you don't want to do every few weeks (or even every few years)...so you want to make sure it is really worth it if/when you do. SVN today? GIT next week? something else next year? Please, no. * Tolerable -- and in the case of opencvs, ideal -- license. * its glitches are hated, but known (the devil you know how to subdue, vs. the devil who beats the sh*t out of you) * relatively light weight -- runs fine on a 486, hp300, or on a modern, fast machine, fits nicely into existing distribution, easy to drop into a chroot. * Infrastructure exists. To change it all would require a really good reason. * it fits the OpenBSD development model. * Many of the "features" of alternatives are not desired in the OpenBSD development model. Obviously, it is possible to build a quality-focused product of Operating System magnitude using CVS. I don't think one can quite say CVS is the REASON for OpenBSD's quality, but it obviously hasn't hurt. Nick.
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 01:06:44PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote: > On Apr 20, 2013, at 1:02 PM, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote: > > > Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > > > >> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers. > >> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit. > > > > You might find the cvsps package useful. > > Or use https://bitbucket.org/braindamaged/openbsd-src to catch up on > commits or skim through the history of -current. > > > Franco > Or use cvsync to keep a repository local and then look at the Changelog files. Ken
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > Hi, > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not > better than X - it's just a question. > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like > git as other OSS projekts do? > > Regards, > fritjof > > my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us, developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's less knowledge about other version control systems. Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an advantage if there was ever any repo corruption. You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which they don't even include in the base OS ;-)
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On 09:43 Sat 20 Apr , Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > Hi, > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not > better than X - it's just a question. > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like > git as other OSS projekts do? > > Regards, > fritjof There were several threads similiar to this one. CVS has many advantages. CVS has many disadvantages. If you are uncomfortable with it for some reason you can use other tools you find more useful. There are several git mirrors of openbsd source repo, for example.
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
On Apr 20, 2013, at 1:02 PM, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote: > Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > >> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers. >> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit. > > You might find the cvsps package useful. Or use https://bitbucket.org/braindamaged/openbsd-src to catch up on commits or skim through the history of -current. Franco
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
Alokat MacMoneysack wrote: > I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers. > Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit. You might find the cvsps package useful. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
I work in a place where we used CVS. Recently due to various issues (commits
per file, pserver too slow, branching) we switched to Git. Now after some
months with Git there are some people, me as well but to lesser extent (I had
an early start), who are having issues due to branches they want to have how to
share work with each other. Staging, commits, gerrit, hudson etc. etc..
There is not one best tool that works for everyone forever thereafter ... :)
and usually the one you know is the one you feel most productive ('cause you
really are), but from personal experience as one of the early Git adopters I
have to tell you running Git locally on the CVS checkout was great I saw all
changes (directories multiple file etc.) someone put in when doing cvs update >
git status and for everyone else using only CVS it was easy to share cvs update
> commit ;). In fact since I am new to OpenBSD and want to learn stuff that's
exactly what I am doing with their CVS out local git in.
After years in dev/support/etc. I have to tell you complex tools rarely solve
complex problems... Unless you are the one creating them. You only need simple
building blocks with a small feature set so you can explain it and remember it.
That's actually what I very much like in OpenBSD I installed in 5 minutes and
after that I did ps/top only 11 processes ... Wow. Try that with something else
and you will see the entry barrier to understanding the system is higher.
Sorry I diverted :) the main point is if you want to see changes as groups use
git.
HTH
George
- Original message -
> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers.
> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.
>
> James Griffin wrote:
>
> > Sat 20.Apr'13 at 9:43:24 +0200, Alokat
> > MacMoneysack
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or
> > not better than X - it's just a question.
> > >
> > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
> > >
> > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or
> > something like git as other OSS projekts do?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > fritjof
> >
> > Does it really matter?
> >
> > --
> > James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net
> > jmzgriffin at gmail.com
> >
> > A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38
>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers. Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit. James Griffin wrote: >Sat 20.Apr'13 at 9:43:24 +0200, Alokat >MacMoneysack >> Hi, >> >> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or >not better than X - it's just a question. >> >> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) >> >> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or >something like git as other OSS projekts do? >> >> Regards, >> fritjof > >Does it really matter? > >-- >James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net > jmzgriffin at gmail.com > >A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38 -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
Sat 20.Apr'13 at 9:43:24 +0200, Alokat MacMoneysack > Hi, > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not > better than X - it's just a question. > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like > git as other OSS projekts do? > > Regards, > fritjof Does it really matter? -- James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net jmzgriffin at gmail.com A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38
Why does OpenBSD use CVS?
Hi, first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not better than X - it's just a question. If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :) So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do? Regards, fritjof
