GIT and CVS

[Pedro Larroy]

Why not mercurial? it's more user friendly than git, and better cross
platform support.


Regards.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> At the risk of atomizing the poor horse, I want to refresh ideas and
> thoughts on this.
>
> First, I'll point out I am in favor of GIT.  Not because GIT has won me
> over heart-and-soul, but purely because I can work on GDB GIT offline.
> This is not an inconsiderable benefit.  I can create local check-ins,
> create branches, merge, cherry-pick all in the leisure of my own office,
> or garden, or airport ... without internet access.
>
> So that is my bias laid out.
>
> So why are we still on CVS?  I'm not a release manager, so I do not have
> to do the difficult work of cutting branches, and all of the difficult
> work in making releases.  But what are the objections to GIT?
> Personally, I'll give a strong bias to Joel's opinions because, frankly,
> he has to deal with this issue far more than any other.
>
> GIT is, I think, available everywhere, has a CVS interface, and is
> far, far quicker than CVS.  Maybe with the stronger identity and
> information that comes with GIT logs we can finally retire
> ChangeLogs.
>
> CVS has served very well over the years.  I, and many others, cut our
> teeth on it.  It's been a good system.  But beyond stability I
> don't see it keeping up with functionality of other repository systems.
> I find myself working on GIT 98% of the time, and the other 2% dealing
> with CVS on the final check-in.  Surely I can't be the only hacker that
> does this?  If the vast majority are in this work-flow, perhaps we
> should think about the pros and the cons again.  I have no ideas about
> the work-flows of my GDB hackers, and if, you know, we are all doing this
> then we should recognize the elephant in the room.  If not, then I will
> go happily into the (CVS) night, content on the validity of its use and
> utility.
>
> So, what do you think?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>