On Sun, Aug 05, 2012 at 10:46, Darrin Chandler wrote: > On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 07:05:38PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: >> Well, git just has a different set of bugs than cvs. > ... >> I would deem cvs MORE painful than git on average, it's just that >> we're more accustomed to the pain... > > Yes, this is right. And also there would be a price to pay in lost > productivity in switching to a new system. To those very familiar with > CVS and not very familiar with Git (or hg, et al), the benefits of > switching are nebulous and uncertain, while the cost is very real.
I will add a somewhat controversial viewpoint to the mix. Because cvs makes working with branches and large diffs so painful, it forces developers to split their work into smaller pieces. In OpenBSD, that's a good thing. Keeping your changes in a private fork is difficult, which is good. It means fewer private forks. If every developer could maintain a branch with some private tweaks, and not bother integrating their changes or fixing regressions, progress would grind to a halt. [I have mentioned this to people before and their eyes just about popped out of their head. I don't expect everyone to agree.] github is all about social coding and they have a point. But many of the things they enable are considered antisocial in the OpenBSD development process.
