Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Alokat
Hi,

first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not better than X - it's just a question.

If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)

So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do?

Regards,
fritjof

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

James Griffin-2
................Sat 20.Apr'13 at  9:43:24 +0200, Alokat MacMoneysack................

> Hi,
>
> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not better than X - it's just a question.
>
> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>
> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do?
>
> Regards,
> fritjof

Does it really matter?

--
James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net
                                jmzgriffin at gmail.com

A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D  B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Alokat
I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers. Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.

James Griffin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>................Sat 20.Apr'13 at  9:43:24 +0200, Alokat
>MacMoneysack................
>> Hi,
>>
>> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or
>not better than X - it's just a question.
>>
>> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>>
>> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or
>something like git as other OSS projekts do?
>>
>> Regards,
>> fritjof
>
>Does it really matter?
>
>--
>James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net
> jmzgriffin at gmail.com
>
>A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D  B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

George-2
I work in a place where we used CVS. Recently due to various issues (commits per file, pserver too slow, branching) we switched to Git. Now after some months with Git there are some people, me as well but to lesser extent (I had an early start), who are having issues due to branches they want to have how to share work with each other. Staging, commits, gerrit, hudson etc. etc..

There is not one best tool that works for everyone forever thereafter ... :) and usually the one you know is the one you feel most productive ('cause you really are), but from personal experience as one of the early Git adopters I have to tell you running Git locally on the CVS checkout was great I saw all changes (directories multiple file etc.) someone put in when doing cvs update > git status and for everyone else using only CVS it was easy to share cvs update > commit ;). In fact since I am new to OpenBSD and want to learn stuff that's exactly what I am doing with their CVS out local git in.

After years in dev/support/etc. I have to tell you complex tools rarely solve complex problems... Unless you are the one creating them. You only need simple building blocks with a small feature set so you can explain it and remember it. That's actually what I very much like in OpenBSD I installed in 5 minutes and after that I did ps/top only 11 processes ... Wow. Try that with something else and you will see the entry barrier to understanding the system is higher.

Sorry I diverted :) the main point is if you want to see changes as groups use git.
HTH
George


----- Original message -----

> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers.
> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.
>
> James Griffin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > ................Sat 20.Apr'13 at   9:43:24 +0200, Alokat
> > MacMoneysack................
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or
> > not better than X - it's just a question.
> > >
> > > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
> > >
> > > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or
> > something like git as other OSS projekts do?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > fritjof
> >
> > Does it really matter?
> >
> > --
> > James Griffin:    jmz at kontrol.kode5.net
> >                 jmzgriffin at gmail.com
> >
> > A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D   B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38
>
> --
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Christian Weisgerber
In reply to this post by Alokat
Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers.
> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.

You might find the cvsps package useful.

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Franco Fichtner-2
On Apr 20, 2013, at 1:02 PM, [hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

> Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers.
>> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.
>
> You might find the cvsps package useful.

Or use https://bitbucket.org/braindamaged/openbsd-src to catch up on
commits or skim through the history of -current.


Franco

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Kenneth R Westerback
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 01:06:44PM +0200, Franco Fichtner wrote:

> On Apr 20, 2013, at 1:02 PM, [hidden email] (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>
> > Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> I find it a little bit difficult to see the commits from the developers.
> >> Because I have to check out the single files and not a single commit.
> >
> > You might find the cvsps package useful.
>
> Or use https://bitbucket.org/braindamaged/openbsd-src to catch up on
> commits or skim through the history of -current.
>
>
> Franco
>

Or use cvsync to keep a repository local and then look at the Changelog
files.

.... Ken

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Stuart Henderson
In reply to this post by Alokat
On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not better than X - it's just a question.
>
> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>
> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do?
>
> Regards,
> fritjof
>
>

my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us,
developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's
less knowledge about other version control systems.

Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an
advantage if there was ever any repo corruption.

You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which
they don't even include in the base OS ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

sickmind
In reply to this post by Alokat
On 09:43 Sat 20 Apr     , Alokat MacMoneysack wrote:

> Hi,
>
> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not better than X - it's just a question.
>
> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>
> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something like git as other OSS projekts do?
>
> Regards,
> fritjof

There were several threads similiar to this one. CVS has many
advantages. CVS has many disadvantages. If you are uncomfortable with it
for some reason you can use other tools you find more useful. There are
several git mirrors of openbsd source repo, for example.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Nick Holland
In reply to this post by Alokat
On 04/20/13 03:42, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or
> not better than X - it's just a question.
>
> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)

Good, 'cause it does. :)

> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or
> something like git as other OSS projekts do?

* "it works"
* migrating - and not losing history is difficult.
* migrating versioning systems is something you don't want to do every
few weeks (or even every few years)...so you want to make sure it is
really worth it if/when you do.  SVN today?  GIT next week?  something
else next year?  Please, no.
* Tolerable -- and in the case of opencvs, ideal -- license.
* its glitches are hated, but known (the devil you know how to subdue,
vs. the devil who beats the sh*t out of you)
* relatively light weight -- runs fine on a 486, hp300, or on a modern,
fast machine, fits nicely into existing distribution, easy to drop into
a chroot.
* Infrastructure exists.  To change it all would require a really good
reason.
* it fits the OpenBSD development model.
* Many of the "features" of alternatives are not desired in the OpenBSD
development model.

Obviously, it is possible to build a quality-focused product of
Operating System magnitude using CVS.  I don't think one can quite say
CVS is the REASON for OpenBSD's quality, but it obviously hasn't hurt.

Nick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Eric S Pulley
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson
> On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not
>> better than X - it's just a question.
>>
>> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>>
>> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something
>> like git as other OSS projekts do?
>>
>> Regards,
>> fritjof
>>
>>
>
> my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us,
> developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's
> less knowledge about other version control systems.
>
> Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an
> advantage if there was ever any repo corruption.
>
> You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which
> they don't even include in the base OS ;-)
>
>
Amen. The fact that I now have to install subversion and all its bloat
dependencies to do anything in the other BSD I use will me making it so I
now do a lot more with OpenBSD.

--
ESP

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
In reply to this post by Nick Holland
On 2013-04-20 23:32, Nick Holland wrote:

> On 04/20/13 03:42, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or
> > not better than X - it's just a question.
> >
> > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>
> Good, 'cause it does. :)
>
> > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or
> > something like git as other OSS projekts do?
>
> * "it works"
> * migrating - and not losing history is difficult.
> * migrating versioning systems is something you don't want to do every
> few weeks (or even every few years)...so you want to make sure it is
> really worth it if/when you do.  SVN today?  GIT next week?  something
> else next year?  Please, no.
> * Tolerable -- and in the case of opencvs, ideal -- license.
> * its glitches are hated, but known (the devil you know how to subdue,
> vs. the devil who beats the sh*t out of you)
> * relatively light weight -- runs fine on a 486, hp300, or on a modern,
> fast machine, fits nicely into existing distribution, easy to drop into
> a chroot.
> * Infrastructure exists.  To change it all would require a really good
> reason.
> * it fits the OpenBSD development model.
> * Many of the "features" of alternatives are not desired in the OpenBSD
> development model.

Out of curiosity; what are these "features"?

>
> Obviously, it is possible to build a quality-focused product of
> Operating System magnitude using CVS.  I don't think one can quite say
> CVS is the REASON for OpenBSD's quality, but it obviously hasn't hurt.
>
> Nick.
>

--
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
In reply to this post by Stuart Henderson
On 2013-04-20 12:15, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not
better than X - it's just a question.
> >
> > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
> >
> > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something
like git as other OSS projekts do?

> >
> > Regards,
> > fritjof
> >
> >
>
> my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us,
> developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's
> less knowledge about other version control systems.
>
> Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an
> advantage if there was ever any repo corruption.

Some other CVS keeps checksums of every commit, and every commit contains
the checksum of the last commit + this commits diff. This helps *prevent*
corruption (or at least prevents it from spreading).
I think that beats human-readable files to manually find corruptions
(that may well spread).

>
> You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which
> they don't even include in the base OS ;-)
>

--
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Nick Holland
In reply to this post by Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
On 04/29/13 00:00, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:

> On 2013-04-20 23:32, Nick Holland wrote:
>> On 04/20/13 03:42, Alokat MacMoneysack wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or
>> > not better than X - it's just a question.
>> >
>> > If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>>
>> Good, 'cause it does. :)
>>
>> > So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or
>> > something like git as other OSS projekts do?
>>
>> * "it works"
>> * migrating - and not losing history is difficult.
>> * migrating versioning systems is something you don't want to do every
>> few weeks (or even every few years)...so you want to make sure it is
>> really worth it if/when you do.  SVN today?  GIT next week?  something
>> else next year?  Please, no.
>> * Tolerable -- and in the case of opencvs, ideal -- license.
>> * its glitches are hated, but known (the devil you know how to subdue,
>> vs. the devil who beats the sh*t out of you)
>> * relatively light weight -- runs fine on a 486, hp300, or on a modern,
>> fast machine, fits nicely into existing distribution, easy to drop into
>> a chroot.
>> * Infrastructure exists.  To change it all would require a really good
>> reason.
>> * it fits the OpenBSD development model.
>> * Many of the "features" of alternatives are not desired in the OpenBSD
>> development model.
>
> Out of curiosity; what are these "features"?

Honestly, I haven't played much with the alternatives...but usually I
hear about how wonderful the branching and merging is in these other
products...but that is NOT something we wish to be doing (see the
presentations on the OpenBSD development process in the "papers" section
of the website).  Our model is "all development is done at HEAD", if
something is committed, it is supposed to be better than what was there
before (which in some cases, may be "nothing", in which case, the bar is
more "it is in a state where at least the group can work on it").

Without bothering to dig up references...I recall there have been people
singing the praises of how the various CVS alternatives try to handle
the management of development teams, and OpenBSD developers (most of
whom have "day jobs" related to their work) commenting along the lines
of "doesn't work, still need real human leadership".

I think a better question, considering the pain of conversion, is what
features would give OpenBSD a clear gain by converting?

Want to sell OpenBSD on an alternative?  Find a product that was really
crappy, switched development tools, and suddenly started rivaling
OpenBSD for quality for no reason other than the switch of development
tools.

Nick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Thomas de Grivel-2
In reply to this post by Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
Le 04/29/13 06:03, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera a écrit :

> On 2013-04-20 12:15, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not
> better than X - it's just a question.
>>>
>>> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>>>
>>> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something
> like git as other OSS projekts do?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> fritjof
>>>
>>>
>>
>> my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us,
>> developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's
>> less knowledge about other version control systems.
>>
>> Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an
>> advantage if there was ever any repo corruption.
>
> Some other CVS keeps checksums of every commit, and every commit contains
> the checksum of the last commit + this commits diff. This helps *prevent*
> corruption (or at least prevents it from spreading).
> I think that beats human-readable files to manually find corruptions
> (that may well spread).

I ran into a hash collision once, using git rebase.


>>
>> You might also ask why some other OS use source control software which
>> they don't even include in the base OS ;-)
>>
>
> --
> Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
>
> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
>


--
Thomas de Grivel
"I must plunge into the water of doubt again and again."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why does OpenBSD use CVS?

Stuart Henderson
On 2013-05-01, Thomas de Grivel <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 04/29/13 06:03, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera a écrit :
>> On 2013-04-20 12:15, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-20, Alokat MacMoneysack <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> first, I don't want to start a flame war about why is CVS better or not
>> better than X - it's just a question.
>>>>
>>>> If you say, we use it because it just works - it's okay. :)
>>>>
>>>> So why does OpenBSD still uses CVS and don't migrate to SVN or something
>> like git as other OSS projekts do?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> fritjof
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> my 2p: like all version control software CVS has bugs, but between us,
>>> developers have a reasonable idea of how to avoid them in CVS, there's
>>> less knowledge about other version control systems.
>>>
>>> Also having the repository stored in human-readable (ish) files is an
>>> advantage if there was ever any repo corruption.
>>
>> Some other CVS keeps checksums of every commit, and every commit contains
>> the checksum of the last commit + this commits diff. This helps *prevent*
>> corruption (or at least prevents it from spreading).
>> I think that beats human-readable files to manually find corruptions
>> (that may well spread).
>
> I ran into a hash collision once, using git rebase.

Like I said, "between us, developers have a reasonable idea of how to
avoid them in CVS, there's less knowledge about other version control
systems." ;)

Out of interest, what happens in this case? does git notice and ask you
to make some silly change to avoid the collision (tweak whitespace or
something), or does it cause havoc?