On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 03:59:15PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 01:05:38AM +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote: > > I second that, unless there are some obvious advantages which I cannot > > see. In case there are some it would be great if they get mentioned in > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dist_Git_Proposal > > Linked from there: > > Current Pain Points > > * No atomic commits > * Not being able to work offline (cvs add needs a server, wtf.) > * Adding sources can be "weird", can easily clobber existing sources > * Can't handle big files well > * CVS bogons/bonghits/grimlins/websuckage > * Prohibitively expensive to reconstruct infrastructure outside our > environment > * Better handling of force-tag > * Commits are SLOW!!! > * Common dir, wtf. > * Really really unreliable (especially with a lot of actions or > continuous actions) > * Prep work to get into package source control is done outside of source > control. No opportunity to learn the tools * changes are not content-addressed * difficult to reliable compare two trees (repositories) * branches are useless, difficult to maintain, merge, ... * does not support distributed development (how I can clone my fedora pkg SCM at fedorapeople?) * does not allow to track more remote repositories in one local repository * does not support GPG-signed tags * impossible to read patches from e-mail, send well formatted patches by email, ... * commit messages are very poor and not integrated to patches * does not differentiate between patch author and committer * browse project history is difficult and SLOW * cvs log/status is horrible, unreadable and unformattable * brain dead web interface * bad documentation * no active development of CVS * many developer use already git and Fedora is the last place where they have to fight with CVS Karel -- Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx> http://karelzak.blogspot.com -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
