Re: GIT and CVS

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:20:34 +0100
> 
> > My main development machines run MS-Windows.  Git sucks on MS-Windows
> 
> In which way, how does it differ from GNU/Linux * Distros?

It's slow, and it requires MSYS, a fork of Cygwin that comes with its
own set of incompatible binaries for Bash, Coreutils, etc.  This
complicates your system setup if you already have Cygwin or native
MinGW environments.

> Do you have the CVS add-on to git on MS-Windows?

Sorry, I don't understand the question.  Why would I need this on the
client machine?

> Are you running Cygwin?

No.  I use native MinGW tools.

> If it sucks, is it a matter of requesting maintainer updates?

AFAIK, there are no plans to abandon MSYS as the platform for porting
git to Windows, and given the fact that git is maintained by Linux
kernel guys, I cannot expect any sympathy from then to supporting
Windows.

> > (I don't like it much on GNU/Linux, either).  If we are to switch to
> > git, it'll probably make me much less active as a member of the GDB
> > project.
> 
> GIT offers a CVS extension to make this as transparent as possible.  Why
> would that affect your contribution?

Because I don't want to be left behind: if GDB switches to a dVCS, I'd
like to use a dVCS, too.  The ease of local commits, the high
probability of conflict-free merges, the convenience of easily doing a
local branch, shelve and unshelve pending changes -- all those make my
life quality better, and I don't want to be a second-grade citizen
among GDB developers.

> > If we are going to switch to a dVCS, git is not the only choice.  I
> > like bzr better; bzr is a GNU project, unlike git.
> 
> Given your question above, does bzr fulfill the roles any better than
> GIT?

Yes, definitely.  For starters, it works on Posix and Windows
platforms alike.  Emacs uses bzr as its VCS for the last 2 years or
so.