Live data from Hacker News

From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

evilgeniuslabs.ca

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#31
Most surprising thing from this article is that svn’s reign was only two years. I vividly remember using it for much longer than that, but at the same time, adopting git almost as soon as it arrived.

It’s probably my memory playing tricks and svn was indeed a short term endeavor.

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#32

Most surprising thing from this article is that svn’s reign was only two years. I vividly remember using it for much longer than that, but at the same time, adopting git almost as soon as it arrived. It’s probably my memory playing tricks and svn was indeed a short term endeavor.

svn was absolutely in common use for a lot more than 2 years. I would totally believe that cvs was still in wider use though as there was sooo much legacy software hosted on it.

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#33

I use Subversion w/o a server too. You can have your repositories locally (file:///Path/to/repository). All my own (single man) projects are in local SVN repositories. For my use case git is just too much extra friction, and I still love to have my one single unique global revisions number that is linearly increasing with each commit. :)

git rev-list --count HEAD

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#34
post #14

I use Subversion w/o a server too. You can have your repositories locally (file:///Path/to/repository). All my own (single man) projects are in local SVN repositories. For my use case git is just too much extra friction, and I still love to have my one single unique global revisions number that is linearly increasing with each commit. :)

I loved the simple increasing numbers of Subversion. This was better then CVS "ad-hoc" versioning and also far better then git's hashes. Single numbers are easy for humans. I would love git would make it possible to work that way (there is one way: `git describe` can show something like "v1.0.4-14-g2414721" which means "14 commits ahead of tag v1.0.4".)

My release code uses `git rev-list --count $tag` to output the release number.

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#35
Our main repo has git history back to 1985. RCS to CVS to git. Each step was lossless. I don’t remember the exact tool, but the CVS to git step was a fantastic Ruby program. It was incremental and each night I had a cron job that would update a checked out copy of the sources on the git side and diff with a copy from CVS. After 6 months I had confidence and the training of everyone was complete and we switched over.

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#36

Most surprising thing from this article is that svn’s reign was only two years. I vividly remember using it for much longer than that, but at the same time, adopting git almost as soon as it arrived. It’s probably my memory playing tricks and svn was indeed a short term endeavor.

svn was absolutely in common use for a lot more than 2 years. I would totally believe that cvs was still in wider use though as there was sooo much legacy software hosted on it.

[deleted]

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#37
post #7

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Atlassian had stuck with Mercurial support on Bitbucket - I don't think they can pretend that switching to git did very much for them. I love(d) Mercurial, and particularly TortoiseHg integration on Windows.

Fossil supports wiki, forum, issues

but thing is, aren't coding agents tunned for git based workflows? many agents use git trees right?

so it's unlikely that any git alternative will pickup from here?

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#38
post #29
post #3

Web design tip: don't have animations within a short distance of text, as human eyes evolved to follow the flashiest/fastest-moving thing around, which makes such text literally illegible to many of us. This particular site takes the cake in that regard by animating the whole page background.

True, but the site is called Evil Genius Labs for a reason. And it's not too hard to switch off, there's a clear prompt in the bottom right corner. (Didn't try mobile.)

I turned everything off, but what's with the flashing ".ca" at the top of the page??

Re: From CVS to Git, thirty years of source control

#40
post #3

Web design tip: don't have animations within a short distance of text, as human eyes evolved to follow the flashiest/fastest-moving thing around, which makes such text literally illegible to many of us. This particular site takes the cake in that regard by animating the whole page background.

The moving background detracts and distracts from the content making it hard to focus.
Post reply on HN