3 ms·
> When people talk about Git being a “distributed” system, this is primarily the difference they mean. In CVS, you can’t make commits locally. A commit is a sub
by Pete_D 8y ago
> When people talk about Git being a “distributed” system, this is primarily the difference they mean. In CVS, you can’t make commits locally. A commit is a submission of code to the central repository, so it’s not something you can do without a connection.
Not just commits - log, diff, status, almost everything I can remember needed to go off to the remote repository for information. Not only was this annoying when you didn't have connectivity, it was slow when you did.
I do occasionally miss the ability to version files individually though.
- mjw1007 8y agoCVS was really designed for multiple users logging in to the same server, so that repository access was working directly against the local filesystem. It was pretty fast in that setup. The network server stuff was hacked in on top.
- gkya 8y agoThus is wrong: you can not commit locally means that the commit cannot be local to any checkout. You can perfectly have /some/directory on your computer be the CVSROOT.
- pimlottc 8y agoSubversion, for all its improvements, was the same way. I remember jumping through a lot of ssh proxytunnel hoops just to be able to check svn history when I was working at a remote customer site in 2006. The first time I ran “git commit” and it finished almost immediately blew my mind.
- Bekwnn 8y agoGit's main issue in my experience is scalability. It becomes quite difficult to use on large software.