Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:17:27 +0200
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 06:48 -0400, Thomas Thurman wrote:
2008/9/30 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx>:OK, I wasn't aware about them using bzr ;)
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 05:46 -0400, Thomas Thurman wrote:
2008/9/30 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx>:IIRC, widely. However I have to admit, my last encounter with RCS dates
* CVS (and RCS) archives can be converted/exported to almost all other
VCS if required.
Are CVS and RCS archives equivalent?
back to more than a decade, so ... ;)
Which is why I was wondering why you were recommending it over CVS, you see.
I think you misunderstand bzr. Bzr is a generic distributed VCS,
roughly equivalent to git.
Well, my point is "lack of a userbase", "availability of clients on
different platforms", "integration in IDEs", "VCS providers offering it"
So far, I have never tripped over a major project which is actively
using bzr nor have I ever met a user using it :)
You might not be a fan of MySQL or Ubuntu, but I don't really see how
they qualify as not being major.
OTOH, GCC is using SVN, openSUSE seems to be using SVN, Debian seems to
be using Git.
As for "availability of clients on different platforms": oneSo far, git hasn't convinced me, either ;)
particular case I've run into was a company I worked at recently where
they decided to go for bzr over git.
When I started I asked whatCVS support can be found in almost all IDEs and also is available for
their rationale had been, and they told me it was because some of
their developers ran *nix and some ran Windows. They found at the
time that bzr had better cross-platform support (possibly because of
being written in an interpreted language). Perhaps CVS is even more
widely ported, though, merely by virtue of being older.
most OSes.
Or differently: Don't underestimate the "familiarity factor" when
launching a new archive.
Very true. This is occasionally a very good reason to stick with svnWell, at least to me, GCC having switched to SVN (some years back) had
(or even CVS, although svn is practically a drop-in replacement for
CVS and solves many of its infelicities).
caused massive drawbacks on my work on GCC. So I would not agree to "SVN
being a drop-in replacement for CVS". It has very similar features, but
the CLI is entirely different.
Ralf
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
- References:
- Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Armin Moradi
- Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Nifty Fedora Mitch
- Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Thomas Thurman
- Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Ralf Corsepius
- Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Thomas Thurman
- Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Ralf Corsepius
- Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- From: Thomas Thurman
- Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- Prev by Date: Re: Digital signatures don't work in Fedora's OpenOffice
- Next by Date: Gnome nautilus: howto enable the FLV preview
- Previous by thread: Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- Next by thread: Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|