Re: The essential problems of moving from CVS

[Curt Sampson <cjs%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On 2010-01-15 08:50 +0000 (Fri), David Holland wrote:

> Any system that has rename, atomic commits, sane branches, and
> fast tagging is going to appeal to a lot of people, more still if
> it supports disconnected operation; my guess is that we'll end up
> adopting the first one that comes along with no major downsides.

Well, that's SVN with SVK. I suppose the downside is the perceived
instability of it. But this is, essentially, a decision, at the very
least, not to seek some of the advantages a DVCS could give us. Which is
fine, but I'd like to see that admitted explicitly, rather than implied.

> Hee. But it would be more accurate to say "from CVS to
> git/mercurial/monotone/whatnot or maybe subversion or maybe write our
> own".

Right. So I'm trying to narrow that down a bit.

But perhaps I'm wrong here, and if we did get a pretty good conversion
to Git working, it would be accepted with only a few months of intense
battle and less than a dozen developers quitting.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson         <cjs%cynic.net@localhost>         +81 90 7737 2974
             http://www.starling-software.com
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism
by those who have not got it.    --George Bernard Shaw