[slime-devel] CVS and friends
dherring at tentpost.com
dherring at tentpost.com
Mon Aug 23 18:52:58 UTC 2010
Helmut Eller wrote:
> * dherring at tentpost.com [2010-08-23 15:54] writes:
>> FWIW, Subversion was written because CVS has several well-known flaws
>> which can result in a borked commit leaving the repository in a
>> inconsistent state. SVN was designed to be a drop-in replacement with
>> atomic commits to fix the fundamental issues in CVS.
> VCS debates... everybody has heard all the arguments already a dozen
> times and the result will be the same. Let's face it: it's a waste of
>> Speaking from experience, newer tools including DVCSs *can* interact
>> CVS; but their users must give up most of the new features in doing so
>> (including all the distributed features), and the conversion process is
>> quite fragile and painful (largely due to CVS's lack of atomic commits).
>> It is not a pleasant experience.
> I don't understand what you mean. The point of those DVCSs seems to be
> that you don't need a central server and that every clone/repository has
> all the history and therefore supports *all* features.
Only true if each DVCS user has the same history. Since CVS is
fundamentally broken, there are dozens of fuzz algorithms that try to
extract a history. This is a nontrivial task, the conversion routines are
not as well developed as other tools, etc. As a result, people intending
to check back into CVS or SVN are advised to do their own conversions and
not share with others.
I tried sharing converted repos. It was a massive maintenance drain, and
eventually failed spectacularly. Everything needed a total rebuild once a
year or so, each time the conversion tool changed substantially. Not fun
at all. Lesson learned. Any conversion, even something saner like darcs
to git, is fraught with terror.
>> A switch to SVN means basically changing "cvs command" to "svn command".
>> The newer tools with vastly superior history models do have different
>> command sets.
>> IMNSHO, there were no justifiable reasons for using CVS in 2005, much
>> in 2010. The choice of VCS has ramifications to end-users and potential
> Well, Emacs switched from CVS to Bzr a while back. For someone like me
> who essentially only needs "cvs up" once in a while the switch was a net
> loss. What used to take 2 minutes and downloaded 5 MB with CVS takes
> now 20 minutes and 200 MB. My urge to update is no pretty much zero.
> I doubt that it was an improvement for real Emacs developers either, as
> the main topic on the emacs-devel mailing list is now (since 6 month or
> so) in how many ways Bzr sucks. Good use of resources that is.
At least we can agree that Bzr sucks. ;)
Seriously, I'm no SVN fanboy; but an upgrade from CVS to SVN causes
minimal user-visible changes, while fixing some rather substantial bugs in
CVS. It is like changing from rsh to ssh -- there are almost no
I only have CVS installed for a handful of projects. Sadly, they are all
More information about the slime-devel