4 ms·

It's fine because current developers are satisfied, but possibly some new developers (candidates) don't want to treat CVS. Still it's fine if current developer

It's fine because current developers are satisfied, but possibly some new developers (candidates) don't want to treat CVS. Still it's fine if current developer think it's not a problem.

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
I'm not so sure. I think it's really questionable if the SCM used is a major factor in deciding what open source project one wants to contribute to? "I would want to contribute to OpenBSD, but they use CVS, so I won't" - really? o_O I get that github is probably the "lowest barrier to entry" here, but providing the "lowest barrier" is probably not even in OpenBSD's interest here. It's the same with some operating systems not providing graphical installers and whatnot. I could see not using github in a similar light here. If it's a simple bug fix or a one line change, reporting it is sufficient, a dev will fix it. If one's engagement is supposed to go much further, I don't think CVS is such a big hurdle? Or am I misjudging here?
dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
I'd really find it hard to believe. When I was contributing to OpenBSD (in a tiny way) my attitude was I want to help the project, to do something useful. So I read on everything relevant, made the best effort to do everything right, asked around on mailing lists, and in the end my contributions were approved. I can't imagine anyone in this situation saying "CVS? I don't like it, so I give up." Also, practically speaking, CVS is trivial to use, you can learn whatever you need in 5 minutes and never think about it.
- nix23 5y ago
  I hear that all the time "oh it's using cvs and not git??...that's bad!", i then instantly know that this is a person who is not able to learn other tools. BTW: Those rust, git enthusiast are those who never work on the project in the end, the are evangelists not makers.

4 ms·

It's fine because current developers are satisfied, but possibly some new developers (candidates) don't want to treat CVS. Still it's fine if current developer

by fomine3 5y ago

It's fine because current developers are satisfied, but possibly some new developers (candidates) don't want to treat CVS. Still it's fine if current developer think it's not a problem.

Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL 5y ago
I'm not so sure. I think it's really questionable if the SCM used is a major factor in deciding what open source project one wants to contribute to? "I would want to contribute to OpenBSD, but they use CVS, so I won't" - really? o_O I get that github is probably the "lowest barrier to entry" here, but providing the "lowest barrier" is probably not even in OpenBSD's interest here. It's the same with some operating systems not providing graphical installers and whatnot. I could see not using github in a similar light here. If it's a simple bug fix or a one line change, reporting it is sufficient, a dev will fix it. If one's engagement is supposed to go much further, I don't think CVS is such a big hurdle? Or am I misjudging here?
dvfjsdhgfv 5y ago
I'd really find it hard to believe. When I was contributing to OpenBSD (in a tiny way) my attitude was I want to help the project, to do something useful. So I read on everything relevant, made the best effort to do everything right, asked around on mailing lists, and in the end my contributions were approved. I can't imagine anyone in this situation saying "CVS? I don't like it, so I give up." Also, practically speaking, CVS is trivial to use, you can learn whatever you need in 5 minutes and never think about it.
- nix23 5y ago
  I hear that all the time "oh it's using cvs and not git??...that's bad!", i then instantly know that this is a person who is not able to learn other tools. BTW: Those rust, git enthusiast are those who never work on the project in the end, the are evangelists not makers.