Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu Changelog Makefile Makefile.target TODO ae...

[Luca]

On 9/17/07, J. Mayer <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-09-17 at 23:14 +0200, Luca wrote:
> > > > since I mentionned "you should have used Git", I'll repeat:
> > > > this commit was not disruptive to any of the Git users, and will
> > > > never be.
> > > >
> > > > Evolve, or prepare to be assimilated into the Collective...
> > >
> > > Both the qemu.org and the Savannah project page only mention CVS. If
> > > there are better ways to get the code then inform your users how to
> > > use that.
>
> > http://brick.kernel.dk/git/?p=qemu.git;a=summary
> > It's tracking QEMU CVS; you're right that it's not mentioned anywhere
> > on the site (AFAICS).
> > You can also DIY with git-cvsimport; see e.g.
> > http://chneukirchen.org/blog/archive/2006/04/tracking-the-ruby-cvs-with-git.html
>
> Another point is CVS is an industry standard. It has many drawbacks but
> is prooven to do its job as specified in a very reliable way. For now,
> not such a thing for git, afaik. If it ever become the new industry
> standard, after having prooven its reliability and long term stability,
> then you may be able to expect everyone to use it.
> Did anyone has done a long term comparison of CVS and git running on two 
> copies of the
> same production repository and have made sure that any extraction at any
> time of any data (ie, checkout in the present and any date in the past,
> diffs, ...) of the two gives exactly the same result?

Actually CVS doesn't provide _any_ guarantee about data integrity. GIT
does. So...

> Please show me
> such studies and I may reconsider my position... If not, you can always
> use it, closing your eyes and praying for everything to be OK...

...yes, I'm willing to trust GIT over CVS any time ;)

Luca