CVS and its problems

[Branko Čibej]

Phil Edwards wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 12:25:08AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>  
>
>>I'd suggest not putting too much effort into fixing problems caused by
>>CVS in the short term; quick hacks are probably good enough.  Why?
>>Because subversion (subversion.tigris.org) actually looks like it's on
>>schedule to come out with a stable version 1.0 before the end of 2002.
>>And there was already agreement that it would be good to switch over
>>once it was released.
>>    
>>
>
>Yeah, I spent some time looking at this yesterday, prompted by the CVs
>discussions.
>
>The only two things that bother me are:
>
>1)  Subversion 1.0 will not have the equivalent of "cvs annotate"[*]
>    due to schedule slippage (something all of us are all too familiar
>    with), and
>
Yes. :-( Any help with that would be appreciated, of course. We're still 
three weeks to Alpha and feature freeze. :-)

>2)  It uses HTTP for its underlying transport, unless I've seriously
>    misread their docs.  Which means that people behind firewalls now face
>    a whole new set of problems, since simple tunneling through SSH is out.
>
Work is being done on a "pipe" access method that could be tunnelled 
directly through SSH, without having to set up Apache on the server. 
Sadly, that's not progressing very well, either ...

In the meantime, a SSH tunnel should work.

>While I'll continue to encourage GCC to replace CVS with Subversion, if
>for no other reason than most of the stupid O(n) operations become O(1),
>I personally wouldn't be able to do any more work on the repository,
>because our HTTP proxy is truly facist.
>
>
>Phil
>[*] amusingly called "svn blame" in Subversion.
>  
>
Isn't that what you use "cvs annotate" for? :-)

-- 
Brane ÄŒibej   <brane@xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/