3 ms·

Awwwww, I remember back in the days of dealing with CVS, where there was so much scripting to try and manage basic stuff we take for granted like creating patch

by olliej 4y ago

Awwwww, I remember back in the days of dealing with CVS, where there was so much scripting to try and manage basic stuff we take for granted like creating patches that included new files. Subversion was so undeniably superior that everyone was super happy and instant. Git took much much longer as the complexity vs. the win was much more debatable to people, so it's interesting to see this finally happening - I will miss linearly increasing revision numbers though. Glad to see they're keeping with bugzilla though - for whatever reason I find the GitHub issue tracker super annoying. Presumably at least part of that is familiarity and/or change resistance :D

JohnTHaller 4y ago
With the bugzilla issue tracker, they keep ownership.
- olliej 4y ago
  What do you mean? (as in ownership of what I guess?)
a-dub 4y ago
> Subversion was so undeniably superior that everyone was super happy and instant. Git took much much longer as the complexity vs. the win was much more debatable to people, so it's interesting to see this finally happening - I will miss linearly increasing revision numbers though. p4 and then git were easy sells for large projects. while subversion was faster than cvs with its local hidden copy, many operations were still dog slow as they'd scan the whole repository (this was often worked around by creating lots of small repositories with associated wrapper scripts). p4 and git on the other hand were designed to handle large trees with ease. so for something on the scale of an operating system, browser, or both... the difference in productivity was significant. (tens of minutes vs single digit seconds for basic operations)
usefulcat 4y ago
I remember when CVS was the new hotness. I was on a team of 3 at the time (90s), and one of our members worked remotely, so the fact that it was actually usable over a dial up connection was a killer feature for us. Also pretty much anything was better than SourceSafe, which is what everybody else in the company was using.
- a-dub 4y ago
  what was it again? export CVS_RSH=ssh -z9 sourcesafe was trash. i migrated a pretty massive project off of it (browser, os, several bsps) and like 30% of the revisions were irretrievable.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dtgriscom 4y ago
> Subversion was so undeniably superior... I was fine with CVS, and I'm fine with Git now. But, for some reason, I could never wrap my head around Subversion. Something about revisions-as-a-directory-tree just messed with my neurons.
- dwaite 4y ago
  > Something about revisions-as-a-directory-tree just messed with my neurons Do you mean tags and branches?
mrweasel 4y ago
Subversion had it's quirks initially. It didn't work on NFS for instance, because the default backend was Berkeley DB, or some version of it. Looking back Subversion was a bit of a weird project. It didn't re-evaluate what was wrong with CVS. It was more a "Let's try that again, but fix a few obvious problems". Subversion didn't really contribute with that much overall. We could do branches more simply, but most of us just replaced the cvs command with svn and continued to work as before.

by olliej 4y ago

JohnTHaller 4y ago

With the bugzilla issue tracker, they keep ownership.

olliej 4y ago
What do you mean? (as in ownership of what I guess?)

a-dub 4y ago

> Subversion was so undeniably superior that everyone was super happy and instant. Git took much much longer as the complexity vs. the win was much more debatable to people, so it's interesting to see this finally happening - I will miss linearly increasing revision numbers though. p4 and then git were easy sells for large projects. while subversion was faster than cvs with its local hidden copy, many operations were still dog slow as they'd scan the whole repository (this was often worked around by creating lots of small repositories with associated wrapper scripts). p4 and git on the other hand were designed to handle large trees with ease. so for something on the scale of an operating system, browser, or both... the difference in productivity was significant. (tens of minutes vs single digit seconds for basic operations)

usefulcat 4y ago

I remember when CVS was the new hotness. I was on a team of 3 at the time (90s), and one of our members worked remotely, so the fact that it was actually usable over a dial up connection was a killer feature for us. Also pretty much anything was better than SourceSafe, which is what everybody else in the company was using.

a-dub 4y ago
what was it again? export CVS_RSH=ssh -z9 sourcesafe was trash. i migrated a pretty massive project off of it (browser, os, several bsps) and like 30% of the revisions were irretrievable.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dtgriscom 4y ago

> Subversion was so undeniably superior... I was fine with CVS, and I'm fine with Git now. But, for some reason, I could never wrap my head around Subversion. Something about revisions-as-a-directory-tree just messed with my neurons.

dwaite 4y ago
> Something about revisions-as-a-directory-tree just messed with my neurons Do you mean tags and branches?

mrweasel 4y ago

Subversion had it's quirks initially. It didn't work on NFS for instance, because the default backend was Berkeley DB, or some version of it. Looking back Subversion was a bit of a weird project. It didn't re-evaluate what was wrong with CVS. It was more a "Let's try that again, but fix a few obvious problems". Subversion didn't really contribute with that much overall. We could do branches more simply, but most of us just replaced the cvs command with svn and continued to work as before.