From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18565 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2011 22:50:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 18555 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Nov 2011 22:50:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-fx0-f41.google.com) (209.85.161.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:50:12 +0000 Received: by faas10 with SMTP id s10so2269725faa.0 for ; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:50:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.106.38 with SMTP id gr6mr8156601lab.35.1321051811321; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:50:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.152.19.99 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:50:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 22:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GIT and CVS From: Pedro Larroy To: pmuldoon@redhat.com Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00084.txt.bz2 Why not mercurial? it's more user friendly than git, and better cross platform support. Regards. On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Phil Muldoon wrote: > > At the risk of atomizing the poor horse, I want to refresh ideas and > thoughts on this. > > First, I'll point out I am in favor of GIT. =A0Not because GIT has won me > over heart-and-soul, but purely because I can work on GDB GIT offline. > This is not an inconsiderable benefit. =A0I can create local check-ins, > create branches, merge, cherry-pick all in the leisure of my own office, > or garden, or airport ... without internet access. > > So that is my bias laid out. > > So why are we still on CVS? =A0I'm not a release manager, so I do not have > to do the difficult work of cutting branches, and all of the difficult > work in making releases. =A0But what are the objections to GIT? > Personally, I'll give a strong bias to Joel's opinions because, frankly, > he has to deal with this issue far more than any other. > > GIT is, I think, available everywhere, has a CVS interface, and is > far, far quicker than CVS. =A0Maybe with the stronger identity and > information that comes with GIT logs we can finally retire > ChangeLogs. > > CVS has served very well over the years. =A0I, and many others, cut our > teeth on it. =A0It's been a good system. =A0But beyond stability I > don't see it keeping up with functionality of other repository systems. > I find myself working on GIT 98% of the time, and the other 2% dealing > with CVS on the final check-in. =A0Surely I can't be the only hacker that > does this? =A0If the vast majority are in this work-flow, perhaps we > should think about the pros and the cons again. =A0I have no ideas about > the work-flows of my GDB hackers, and if, you know, we are all doing this > then we should recognize the elephant in the room. =A0If not, then I will > go happily into the (CVS) night, content on the validity of its use and > utility. > > So, what do you think? > > Cheers, > > Phil >