GIT and CVS

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 10/14/2011 05:02 PM, Paul_Koning@Dell.com wrote:
> The mail string subject is GIT vs CVS, but a lot of the discussion seems to be "replace CVS by something better" -- and the debate is on whether GIT is the right replacement or something else is.

The debate should not be about GIT vs. CVS but about which
"VCS caters gdb's developers' needs"
and about which
"VCS caters the gdb project's technical needs"
best.

> For the most part, my opinion is that anything at all (other than SCCS) is a *massive* improvement on CVS,
Basically agreed, except that "everything comes at a price".

That said, though most VCSes have aspects where they are superior to 
CVS, I haven't seen any which didn't also introduce regressions.

> All things being equal I like SVN, but I get the impression that this isn't the majority opinion (even though GCC uses it).
Well, I feel, due to git/bzr/hg etc., SVN is currently experiencing the 
same fate, CVS experienced when SVN was new.

It was nice, when it was new, it had its time, but it also was largely 
hyped then and now is gradually fading away, because people now are 
considering git/bzr/hg to be superior (and are hyping it ;) )

Ralf