Pretty amusing, in a weird sort of way (perhaps just a sign of some stupid tech-snobbery on my part) to see a very recent message indicating that a large, pretty high-profile and deeply entrenched and respected software project is using CVS.
I'm so used to the constant bombardment about Git (and other DVCS:es) here, that even projects using Subversion seem to be a bit "left behind", and here's all of OpenBSD doing their thing with CVS.
I guess it proves that the tools aren't everything.
In defense of CVS (which I personally wouldn't use anymore today), there's still a point to be made for being to able operate your VCS with only a handful of (mostly) unambiguous commands and having all of those exhaustively explained in a single man-page that doesn't fill a book-shelf.
Especially git has been doing a rather poor job at insulating the user from the immense complexity that the added flexibility incurs.
This is one area where our fancy new DVCS still have to learn from their ancestors.
The usage of CVS as the OpenBSD version control system comes up once in a while on the mailing lists (usually brought up by trolls or people new to the community).
Many OpenBSD developers are used to CVS and don't see a strong reason to change to another system. However, they are aware of the deficiencies of CVS, and OpenCVS is supposed to fix some of them. For instance, atomic commits was on the roadmap (but I don't think it is implemented yet). You can also regularly see commit messages complaining about problems with CVS.
I know some OpenBSD developers use Git locally to track their patches before committing them to the official repository.
Also, not to be ignored, a transition doesn't happen by flipping a switch. There is a good writeup by the postgres team about switching from CVS to GIT:
The Lua team at PUC-Rio still use RCS. They have a "closed development/open source" model, and they only need to coordinate patches between 3 or 4 people who all work at the same university, so it's probably not as crazy as it sounds.
>I guess it proves that the tools aren't everything.
Sort of, it proves that a psychotic mob of minutiae obsessed sufferers of Autism are capable of incredible productivity in spite of anachronistic tooling.
Cf. people that build houses using pre-19th century technology and refuse to use modern plumbing.
Tools are just means to an end. The OpenBSD devs can write better software with punch cards than you can with a modern language. Take your hipsterer-than-thou attitude and shove it.
>The OpenBSD devs can write better software with punch cards than you can with a modern language.
I'm a coder that lives inside of Emacs and m-x shell. What about what I just said would make you believe anything other than that I consider the person to be more important than the tool?
Relax, there is no reason to get so worked up about a little trolling. Someone who just two hours ago told us that his favourite tools are emacs and a terminal emulator certainly doesn't have any weight in the anachronistic tool debate.
Most people are unaware of the OpenBSD workflow, and cvs commits are only the final step in it. There is little "active" development done with cvs. It's for the most part used to commit already reviewed patches. Plenty of developers seem to manage their patches with other systems, including git.
I'm so used to the constant bombardment about Git (and other DVCS:es) here, that even projects using Subversion seem to be a bit "left behind", and here's all of OpenBSD doing their thing with CVS.
I guess it proves that the tools aren't everything.