3 ms·
This is mostly about how bad CVS is, and how poorly it works for distributed development.
by jefftk 4y ago
This is mostly about how bad CVS is, and how poorly it works for distributed development.
- dahart 4y agoTrue, and I agree. But at the same time, distributed development on the scale of the Linux kernel wasn’t that common in CVS’s time. CVS was adequate for it’s day. I’m glad we have git now, and I’m never going back to CVS, but at least it was source control and did it’s job just fine in lots of companies, right? My first real job was all CVS, and I don’t remember major problems. I feel like git didn’t reduce the number of issues as much as it enabled workflows we didn’t have before. All in all, I think I’ve watched more people lose data with git than with CVS, just because git is complicated so when things get messed up, some people nuke their repo rather than fix it, and because git stash is dangerous.
- wrycoder 4y agoI always liked CVS better than Subversion. Merging was easier, and admin could manually fix the repo, if you broke it. I think OpenBSD is still using CVS. Git is better for distributed development and pushing to upstream via layers of review/approval.