Hacker News Reader

Comment by unwind | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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:

http://lwn.net/Articles/409635/

Time frame: three years for a safe transition.

You should weight carefully whether thats worth it.

Its a rewrite of CVS with the emphasis on security:

http://www.opencvs.org/

Edit: this project may not have actually happened - my apologies.

It did happen: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/cvs/

opencvs (which you linked to) is not installed by default, we still install the gnu cvs version (in gnu/usr.bin/cvs).

opencvs is run on some openbsd anoncvs mirrors, but is not used on our main cvs server nor used by many developers.

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.

It's hard to change when you've used a tool effectively for so long. How long did Linus resist using ANY source control software?

Didn't he initially use some proprietary tool called BitKeeper?

Not initially, but he did use it for a while.

>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.

tl;dr fed the troll.

>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?

OpenBSD developers are autistic and psychotic?

Fuck off, and die.

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.

>his favourite tools are emacs and a terminal emulator certainly doesn't have any weight in the anachronistic tool debate.

That should've been your hint that I have an admiration for them and their project.

>>it proves that a psychotic mob of minutiae obsessed sufferers of Autism are capable of incredible productivity in spite of anachronistic tooling

>That should've been your hint that I have an admiration for them and their project.

You called the developers a psychotic mob of Autism sufferers. A hint of admiration, you say?

I'm not sure mere mortals can really implement secure cryptosystems.

The only normal/personable coder that could is probably cperciva.

OTOH, you have Theo.

shrugs Point stands.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com