This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: cvs vs. svn vs. git vs.... (was: Cygwin 1.7 release)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:27:26 -0400
- Subject: Re: cvs vs. svn vs. git vs.... (was: Cygwin 1.7 release)
- References: <1244061552.9556.1318646127@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20090604091627.GS23519@calimero.vinschen.de> <2bf229d30906040403o17d43ef5q5ccfdbb5f54977ae@mail.gmail.com> <4A27B4DB.7030801@gmail.com> <2bf229d30906041045x2832e7b5xc22a8f344ee8ba92@mail.gmail.com> <20090604175811.GB753@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090604182311.GZ23519@calimero.vinschen.de> <20090604184827.GD753@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090604194009.GB23519@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A283549.80208@etr-usa.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com
- Reply-to: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 02:57:45PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>> I still don't understand why everybody is moving away from CVS.
>
>0. Far cleaner versioning scheme: just rXXXX, instead of CVS's
>x.y.z.q.omega.hairball mess. I guess this might annoy those who keep
>their repository versions in step with their public version numbering
>scheme, but I always found it a pain to renumber my CVS repo when there
>was a new major release. And keeping minor releases in step?
>Fuggeddaboudit.
I think it was basically a rhetorical question.
Most of the benefits that people wave pom poms about for other SCMs
don't really apply to Cygwin.
>Asked about his backup strategy years ago, Linus said he didn't make
>backups, because all the stuff he cared about was replicated on FTP,
>news, and mail servers all over the world. As far as software goes,
>that ignores the pain of losing the play-by-play checkin history.
I think that's a pretty compelling reason to use git actually. When
sourceware went down a couple of days ago, I was dreading the thought
that it could have been disk corruption. With a distributed SCM most
of the damage would have been ameliorated.
cgf