| |||||||||||||
Fedora and LVMFedora and LVMPosted Nov 6, 2012 13:33 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)In reply to: Fedora and LVM by dwmw2 Parent article: Fedora and LVM
The thing is, that's pretty much not true. Sure, dealing with such version control systems is painful, but if I followed those rules, I'd lose the source trees for Emacs, KDE (before the recent move to git), Enlightenment, Calibre... there's no real correlation between quality and choice of VCS, though if someone is still using CVS it is probably a sign that the project is not very actively maintained. Equally, there's no correlation between 'project is forced to use SysVIPC to interoperate with other software' and general quality -- only if the project used SysVIPC when it had another choice can such a conclusion be drawn.
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:19 UTC (Tue) by admax88 (subscriber, #75035) [Link]
OpenBSD uses CVS, and its pretty actively maintained and very high quality.
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:45 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
True. There are rare exceptions even here. (I can't think of many, though.)
Fedora and LVM Posted Nov 6, 2012 16:52 UTC (Tue) by admax88 (subscriber, #75035) [Link]
Most of the original GNU software is still in CVS.
Just because a project doesn't adapt to the new hotness in version control doesn't say anything about the quality of the code.
The choice of VCS is more likely an indicator of the age of the project and/or the age of the developers.
|
|||||||||||||