| |||||||||||||
Merry Christmas from FreeBSDMerry Christmas from FreeBSDPosted Dec 27, 2011 8:37 UTC (Tue) by ekj (guest, #1524)Parent article: Merry Christmas from FreeBSD
The FreeBSD-guys use *CVS* to manage their files ?
I'd say that's almost as bad as having a telenetd open to the intertubes. Both are practices that are atleast a decade overdue for a upgrade.
(Log in to post comments)
Merry Christmas from FreeBSD Posted Dec 27, 2011 9:22 UTC (Tue) by fperrin (guest, #61941) [Link]
The primary repository is Subversion (note the indication of SVN tags in the announcement).
CVS and Perforce mirrors are maintained. The recommended way for sysadmins who want to get the source is to use CVSup, which relies on CVS under the hood (of course, devs and people who follow HEAD use SVN directly).
Merry Christmas from FreeBSD Posted Dec 27, 2011 11:58 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
They should just use Git and drop the mirrors. Even DragonflyBSD does.
*BSD vs Linux Posted Dec 28, 2011 7:51 UTC (Wed) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link]
This seems to me symptomatic of the general difference in philosophy between *BSD and Linux distros: Linux distros are decentralized, modular efforts, with hundreds, nay, thousands, of separate projects for the separate parts that go into a major-league distro. The use of decentralized Git for core components like the kernel fits in with this philosophy.
Whereas the BSDs are centralized projects, which even when they make use of code from other projects, prefer to have their own copies of that code in their centralized repository. Hence their preference for a centralized VCS like Subversion.
*BSD vs Linux Posted Dec 28, 2011 9:23 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]
Great, but you can use git that way too.
There's nothing about git that says you can't have one central truth where everything has to go.
*BSD vs Linux Posted Dec 28, 2011 11:05 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Exactly. The *other* benefits of using git like performance makes it worth the effort to switch even when projects are being developed in a central fashion, which is why I explicitly mentioned a BSD flavor using it already. There are dozens of other examples. So thats a poor rationale.
*BSD vs Linux Posted Dec 31, 2011 21:30 UTC (Sat) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] Last time I checked [with peter@fbsd], it was some emotional ***ching about how they're different...
Merry Christmas from FreeBSD Posted Dec 28, 2011 21:53 UTC (Wed) by AnthonyJBentley (subscriber, #71227) [Link] The difference being that using telnet is fundamentally insecure, while CVS just uses an outdated way of thinking about source control. That said, there is a slow move away from CVS, even in the BSD world. FreeBSD has been using Subversion for years. DragonFly BSD has been using Git (including their own Git mirror of pkgsrc). NetBSD is moving to Fossil. OpenBSD had been working on their own CVS implementation, OpenCVS, but that work has basically stalled. The package maintainers are gradually moving to Git, though. But changing repositories should be done slowly and carefully, especially for large projects. LWN even had a good article describing Postgresql’s conversion.
|
|||||||||||||