Re: cvs better than git?

[Michael Cheponis <michael.cheponis%gmail.com@localhost>]

Two points:

1) As much as folks (like me, Johnny) don't like it:  git is THE most
widely-used rcs in the world, by far;  I consider it just a kind of
annotated tar file.

2) git complexity (and user confusion) comes about due to the lack of
conceptual integrity of the design / command structure.  I believe it is
this problem which annoys most.

To work on this problem, MIT researchers published two papers:

   - Purposes, Concepts, Misfits, and a Redesign of Git
   <https://spderosso.github.io/oopsla16.pdf>
   S. P. De Rosso and D. Jackson. In *Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGPLAN
   International Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, Systems,
   Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA 2016)*
   - What's Wrong with Git? A Conceptual Design Analysis
   <https://spderosso.github.io/onward13.pdf>
   S. Perez De Rosso and D. Jackson. In *Proceedings of the 2013 ACM
   International Symposium on New Ideas, New Paradigms, and Reflections on
   Programming & Software (Onward! 2013)*

If you want a thirty-minutes summary presentation, watch "What’s Wrong With
Git?" from Git Merge 2017 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31XZYMjg93o>.

The end result of this work is Gitless,  a simple version control system
built on top of Git.

https://gitless.com/

Perhaps, if there were a commitment to stick with gitless, the confusion
and pain that git sometimes creates could be eliminated.



On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 6:35 AM mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost <mayuresh%kathe.in@localhost> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 05:58 PM IST, Johnny Billquist <
> bqt%update.uu.se@localhost> wrote:
>
> > On 2020-06-17 14:24, Mayuresh wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:07:46PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > >> I could go on about my objects, and the possible risks and issues,
> but I
> > >> think if this rant isn't enough to start you thinking, I doubt any
> more text
> > >> from me will change anything.
> > >
> > > Risk management is important. Given we do that, utilizing such
> services to
> > > our benefit isn't so bad - for example as a mirror rather than primary
> > > storage.
> > >
> > > I mean I'd not completely hold myself back from using such services,
> if I
> > > can benefit from them, as long as I am not being critically dependent
> on
> > > them.
> >
> > What is the benefit then? Now I'm being curious...
> >
> > I mean, if we would be having the primary repository our self, and just
> > have them be a mirror. Just a simple way of adding resources? Is the
> > load of people checking the code out that big? How much can we save
> > there then? Or what other benefits do you see?
>
> do you think high-quality, performant hardware and high-volume, quality
> network connectivity turns out to be as low-cost as "free" (service from
> github)?
> i second that idea of having a budget git repository on hardware owned by
> "the netbsd foundation" which is mirrored by github and takes care of all
> the load of all developers checking in/out their code.
> the project could save big-time on costs, have a safe primary repository
> of all the code, while reaping all the benefits of a large corporation
> offering free high-performance services to be at the developer-facing end