From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5199 invoked by alias); 13 Oct 2011 19:37:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 4865 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Oct 2011 19:37:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:37:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DJbOhZ015659 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:37:24 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9DJbMPs022244 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:37:23 -0400 From: Phil Muldoon To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: GIT and CVS Reply-to: pmuldoon@redhat.com X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 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. Not 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. I 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? I'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. But 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. Maybe with the stronger identity and information that comes with GIT logs we can finally retire ChangeLogs. CVS has served very well over the years. I, and many others, cut our teeth on it. It's been a good system. But 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. Surely I can't be the only hacker that does this? If the vast majority are in this work-flow, perhaps we should think about the pros and the cons again. I 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. If 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