Matthew Mondor wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:10:56 +0200 Helmut Eller heller@common-lisp.net wrote:
Well, I think everybody can set up it's on repository with whatever VCS he likes that imports from CVS an make some scripts to commit back to CVS. That's probably less hassle than force everybody to switch to something else.
I agree,
FWIW, Subversion was written because CVS has several well-known flaws which can result in a borked commit leaving the repository in a completely inconsistent state. SVN was designed to be a drop-in replacement with atomic commits to fix the fundamental issues in CVS.
Speaking from experience, newer tools including DVCSs *can* interact with CVS; but their users must give up most of the new features in doing so (including all the distributed features), and the conversion process is quite fragile and painful (largely due to CVS's lack of atomic commits). It is not a pleasant experience.
A switch to SVN means basically changing "cvs command" to "svn command". The newer tools with vastly superior history models do have different command sets.
IMNSHO, there were no justifiable reasons for using CVS in 2005, much less in 2010. The choice of VCS has ramifications to end-users and potential developers.
- Daniel