Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CVS Infrastructure

Posted by michael on from the diff-on-steroids dept.

LiquidPC writes: "ONLamp.com has an article on FreeBSD's CVSup servers, which includes hints and guidelines on using CVSup. Also, advice from John Polstra, designer of CVSup."

3 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Re:My complaint with CVSup by roguerez · · Score: 3, Informative

    cvsup -L 2 -g supfile

    does the trick on my system.

    The -g switch disables the GUI.

  2. CVS bad? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CVS may have its flaws, but they are relatively minor compared to most of the competition. Sure, you can't rename/move things conveniently, which is irritating, but how often do you want to do that in reality? Not very, surely. Given the technical complications with moving a file (which might be branched, and so on) I can live with this.

    We switched to CVS some time ago at work, when we needed our MLOC project source base to be accessible to people working from home or clients' sites. So far, it's proved pretty successful. We're prepared to sacrifice a couple of little things in exchange for a robust mechanism for remote file access and a decent set of tools for integrating changes from many people.

    I should note that we also use WinCVS, which does make certain tasks easier. For example, you can do an atomic commit of multiple files from all over the source tree easily this way, much more easily than from the command line. Most of the awkward things about CVS are handled by using a decent GUI on top of it, in our experience.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  3. Re:cvsup good, cvs baaaaaad by stripes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    CVS has some big flaws, but it is quite nice. I haven't seen a source code control system that didn't have problems. Anyway I think you should look at subversion they are directly addressing CVSs big flaws. It looks like the authors know a lot about CVS, and like CVS, so whatever they build will probably not suck more then CVS...

    ...except they have a lot of dependence on Apache and the DAV module. So that part at least sucks differently then CVS, and maybe more. Hopefully subversion will get far enough along that I can find out for myself though.

    If McVoy would stop playing silly license games with Bitkeeper so he can try to become the next Sourceforge (sorry, but you lost), then the world would probably beat a path to his door.

    Bitkeeper does look cool. I don't think subversion can do the same sort of hierarchy of repositories that bitkeeper can. Anyway I don't think McVoy wants to be the next SourceForge (are they making money?), he want to be the next PerForce, CodeSafe, or whoever else has made a ton of money directly off version control software.

    In the meantime, are there any robust and free alternatives to cvs?

    No, unless by "robust" you really mean "alpha quality, not trusted to be self hosting yet". Try again in six months :-)