4 ms·

Do you consider "git" a shiny new thing? Using CVS over git in this day and age is a very dumb decision. They may make up for it in other, good decisions. But

by Peaker 12y ago

Do you consider "git" a shiny new thing? Using CVS over git in this day and age is a very dumb decision. They may make up for it in other, good decisions. But this decision is a dumb one.

currysausage 12y ago
> But this decision is a dumb one. What is it with this obsession with telling people how to get sh't done? If they write their code on used kleenex using wax crayons and share that using carrier pigeons, I don't give a sh't as long as the finished product is fine.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- danielweber 12y ago
  It's a perfect example of bike-shedding. Most readers have no way of evaluating their crypto primitives, or their nuclear power plant, or a zillion other things. But we can evaluate their source control!
  - EdwardDiego 12y ago
    That bike shed would be way more robust if you used FP to paint it.
- orblivion 12y ago
  That's fine, but if (and I have no idea if this is the case here) their reason for not wanting to switch to a new source control system is mere stubbornness, they might find that switching to a more efficient source control system frees them up to write even more good code, fix more bugs, etc.
  - stsp 12y ago
    It is not mere stubbornness. The main reason is that CVS works well enough for our purposes. Most of the diff sharing and discussion happens over email anyway. That's where all the action is. The main use case is that CVS distributes OK'd patches and allows us to revert them if they are later found to cause problems. Everyone works on the head branch so there are never any surprises caused by delayed integration. Instead of using branches, the workflow switches between development mode and release mode when the time is right. Release branches receive only a handful of patches (usually less than 10) for the most critical issues discovered during their 1 year maintenance period. Again, CVS is entirely adequate for that. It's not like there was no usage of git at all. Some devs actually use git in private and even mail git-generated diffs around. If those diffs fail to apply to the CVS tree the burden is on them to fix that. Since x.org runs git, all the X11 and other graphics code is ported to OpenBSD in git branches by our X maintainers and committed to the main CVS tree once it's ready to go live. This can be cumbersome but there's always a price to pay when integrating code from third parties that use different tooling.
uxp 12y ago
They aren't using CVS over Git. They're keeping CVS instead of spending months on a migration path to move to a new system that, while has some benefits over their current solution, does essentially the same thing as their current solution, manage source code. They then take all the time they saved not migrating to Git to patch bugs and continue their release cycle so that the next time a critical SSL or SSH vulnerability comes out with a fancy logo and catchy name people don't deride them on Hacker News for wasting all that time moving to Git instead of working on their security products. But, if you don't think you can contribute code or money to the BSD folks, but really think that they are stupid, you can certainly convince them that moving to git is a good idea by developing a roadmap and reconfiguring their infrastructure. I'm sure they'd appreciate your effort.
- kelnos 12y ago
  You're assuming that any productivity gains made by switching to git (or something else modern) would be overshadowed by the time and effort it'd take to migrate. I don't have any evidence either way, and I bet you don't either. (Most) people don't use git (or hg, or whatever) because it's shiny and new, but because it gives them a better workflow and higher productivity.
  - takeda 12y ago
    You can still use git with cvs backend. Probably migration to svn would be smarted since it doesn't change current workflow, granted they actually have a need to migrate.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    And you are assuming there are productivity gains. Their workflow is handled just fine by cvs. Moving to git would provide very little benefit.
    - kelnos 12y ago
      As I said, I'm not assuming anything, and don't know either way. I suspect you don't either, so it's silly to reject the idea of migrating out of hand.
drivingmenuts 12y ago
http://boingboing.net/2007/08/20/flowchart-is-it-fcke.html http://boingboing.net/2007/08/20/flowchart-is-it-fcke.html You don't provide any compelling evidence to the contrary.

by Peaker 12y ago

Do you consider "git" a shiny new thing? Using CVS over git in this day and age is a very dumb decision. They may make up for it in other, good decisions. But this decision is a dumb one.

currysausage 12y ago

> But this decision is a dumb one. What is it with this obsession with telling people how to get sh't done? If they write their code on used kleenex using wax crayons and share that using carrier pigeons, I don't give a sh't as long as the finished product is fine.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
danielweber 12y ago
It's a perfect example of bike-shedding. Most readers have no way of evaluating their crypto primitives, or their nuclear power plant, or a zillion other things. But we can evaluate their source control!
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  That bike shed would be way more robust if you used FP to paint it.
orblivion 12y ago
That's fine, but if (and I have no idea if this is the case here) their reason for not wanting to switch to a new source control system is mere stubbornness, they might find that switching to a more efficient source control system frees them up to write even more good code, fix more bugs, etc.
- stsp 12y ago
  It is not mere stubbornness. The main reason is that CVS works well enough for our purposes. Most of the diff sharing and discussion happens over email anyway. That's where all the action is. The main use case is that CVS distributes OK'd patches and allows us to revert them if they are later found to cause problems. Everyone works on the head branch so there are never any surprises caused by delayed integration. Instead of using branches, the workflow switches between development mode and release mode when the time is right. Release branches receive only a handful of patches (usually less than 10) for the most critical issues discovered during their 1 year maintenance period. Again, CVS is entirely adequate for that. It's not like there was no usage of git at all. Some devs actually use git in private and even mail git-generated diffs around. If those diffs fail to apply to the CVS tree the burden is on them to fix that. Since x.org runs git, all the X11 and other graphics code is ported to OpenBSD in git branches by our X maintainers and committed to the main CVS tree once it's ready to go live. This can be cumbersome but there's always a price to pay when integrating code from third parties that use different tooling.

uxp 12y ago

They aren't using CVS over Git. They're keeping CVS instead of spending months on a migration path to move to a new system that, while has some benefits over their current solution, does essentially the same thing as their current solution, manage source code. They then take all the time they saved not migrating to Git to patch bugs and continue their release cycle so that the next time a critical SSL or SSH vulnerability comes out with a fancy logo and catchy name people don't deride them on Hacker News for wasting all that time moving to Git instead of working on their security products. But, if you don't think you can contribute code or money to the BSD folks, but really think that they are stupid, you can certainly convince them that moving to git is a good idea by developing a roadmap and reconfiguring their infrastructure. I'm sure they'd appreciate your effort.

kelnos 12y ago
You're assuming that any productivity gains made by switching to git (or something else modern) would be overshadowed by the time and effort it'd take to migrate. I don't have any evidence either way, and I bet you don't either. (Most) people don't use git (or hg, or whatever) because it's shiny and new, but because it gives them a better workflow and higher productivity.
- takeda 12y ago
  You can still use git with cvs backend. Probably migration to svn would be smarted since it doesn't change current workflow, granted they actually have a need to migrate.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  And you are assuming there are productivity gains. Their workflow is handled just fine by cvs. Moving to git would provide very little benefit.
  - kelnos 12y ago
    As I said, I'm not assuming anything, and don't know either way. I suspect you don't either, so it's silly to reject the idea of migrating out of hand.

drivingmenuts 12y ago

http://boingboing.net/2007/08/20/flowchart-is-it-fcke.html http://boingboing.net/2007/08/20/flowchart-is-it-fcke.html You don't provide any compelling evidence to the contrary.