3 ms·

I think it fits their development process very well.

• wereHamster 12y ago
  I assume they don't use branches, or merges, or any of the other VCS features which git/mercurial have and which are difficult to do or even impossible in CVS.
  • ams6110 12y ago
    Incorrect, partly. The release cycle is illustrated here: http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release_engineering/mgp00016.html http://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2009-release_enginee... They do branch and tag the tree for releases, but development is done in HEAD not in branches as would be customary for git. I'm not an OpenBSD developer but my understanding is that the branches are used for subsequent patching of that release, not as part of "normal" new development work.
  • tptacek 12y ago
    You really think big projects didn't branch or merge before git was developed?
    • wereHamster 12y ago
      I'm sure they did. But wasn't it painful before git/mercurial? That's what I heard from people who used CVS in the past.
      • vidarh 12y ago
        It is/was painful if you try to merge multiple diverging branches. The CVS solution to that is generally "don't do that", or for everyone on long lasting branches to rebase as frequently as possible. But this is not all that much of a problem in small cohesive teams where everyone with commit rights knows what the others are likely to be working on.
      • kasey_junk 12y ago
        CVS was difficult but there were non distributed vcs that had easy branching.
        • tptacek 12y ago
          In practice, a lot of the stuff that was difficult about branching and merging was just handled outside the VCS, and projects had rules about what you'd do inside the VCS. It worked, and still does for OpenBSD. At Arbor, the last CVS job I worked (back in ~2003), we did release and dev branches no problem. I don't remember fretting about it much. The big issue I remember is, it was a much bigger deal not to break the build.
      • deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]