Re: GIT and CVS

["André Pönitz" <andre.poenitz@nokia.com>]

On Friday 14 October 2011 16:19:01 ext Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> [..] It goes without saying that a modern dVCS is better than CVS in many
> ways.  But switching to a dVCS does not necessarily mean git, there
> are alternatives.  For example, bisecting is supported by bzr and
> Mercurial as well.
> 
> So please don't make it sound like the only 2 choices are CVS and git.

You are right, there are more dVCS options. 

My restriction to git was however intentional, as this was the topic of the
thread and Phil's original question and also what the non-cvs-using gdb 
developers actually use. Moreover it's something I use, and feel sort of
comfortable with.

I don't think changing the direction into a generic "what VCS is best"
discussion would be helpful. At best, we would come up with the same
conclusion as everyone else in such discussions, namely that there is
no single best VCS system.

I think this is all about making the life of the people who actually write the 
code easier. Right now it looks like they are mostly comfortable with git.
Might not be the perfect choice in some people's opinion, but why care?
Even if they wanted to use IP over Avian Carriers because they _know_
it makes them more productive I'd see no reason to discuss packet loss 
rates ;-}

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Using git is so much of a 
step forward compared to CVS that I can't imagine _any_ difference between
git and other dVCSs to obliterate the gain of going from CVS to git.

Andre'

PS: Btw, during my "personal" switch to git I also found the need to type 
two commands instead of one rather annoying. I ended up with a handful 
shell functions like 'gp' for  "git stash; git pull --rebase; git stash pop".
Not sure whether this is good practice, but it certainly solved that "problem".