Re: git versus CVS (versus bk)

Hi,

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

It's really not very easy to explain why CVS sucks. After all, sometimes 
people who have used it for decades have a hard time understanding the 
suckiness.

[...]

How about adding the whole explanation as

	git/Documentation/howto/tell-why-cvs-sucks.txt

(maybe with some more polite name)?

Also, I´d like to add that CVS branching/merging is no good:

<tryingtoputonalbertsshoes>

Sometimes a developer gets an idea, or the need, to implement a certain 
feature to a piece of free software. Now, this idea might seem good, but 
it might take a while to

	- implement it,
	- flesh the bugs out, and
	- maybe realize the idea was not all that good.

All the while, the project is prospering, and you have to keep up-to-date. 
With CVS, you would do "cvs update" every once in a while, and clean up 
the merge conflicts. In effect, you would track the history of the 
upstream project.

Often, however, you would like to track *your* changes, too. This is not 
possible in CVS. You just can´t track two different histories in the same 
working directory.

Now, if you are working on two or more different ideas, which you want to 
test separately *and* together, you need to merge your local branches 
every once in a while. If it weren´t for "every once in a while", but 
"once", you still could do it in CVS. If you want to merge several times 
(keeping the separate development branches), you can´t.

</tryingtoputonalbertsshoesfailingmiserably>

Ciao,
Dscho