When will be CVS replaced by modern version control system?

[Lubomir Kundrak]

On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 11:08 +0100, Adam Tkac wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:41:58AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:12:45 +0100
> > Adam Tkac <atkac at redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > CVS has already passed over best years. I'm wonder why modern
> > > project like Fedora still has sources in this ancient system. Are here
> > > any plans to replace it by git, mercurial, svn or other more modern
> > > version control system?

We don't use it as a true version conrtol system anyways.

> It's not replacement for fun. Yes, CVS works and I believe it will
> work to end of universe. But question is if We have something better
> than CVS. And We have. There're some common problems (yes, CVS and
> SVN suffer :) )

And other VC systems have no problems, right?

> - you have to keep huge changes on your machine when you're doing
>   bigger patch. And it is really confusing sometimes

Careful branching and tagging enables you to be able to commit often while avoiding a big mess.

> - you can't easily move source tree under development. When I want to
>   do development on more machines I have to do ssh, diff, scp, patch. It's
>   pretty annoying

The abovve + CVS update. And what's wrong with ssh, diff, scp and patch?
If you're doing one thing over and over -- ever heard of scripts?

> - when you're doing on some feature you can't do on it simulateously
>   with maintenance & bugfixing. You have to diff, save diff, fix bug,
>   commit, dig your uncomplete "feature" patch, patch source and
>   continue on development

Branches.

> - CVS server outage :)

Other services never have outages?

-- 
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)