Re: cvsweb news

On 08/03/2026 17:15, Andy Wallis wrote:
> On 2026-03-08 01:47, 山卡洛 wrote:
>> why do you, after decades of running a non-mainstream solution (cvs),
>> default to git? why dont you even consider the cleaner alternatives
>> hg, jj, fossil?
>>
>> please keep CVS if you can't come up with anything better designed
>> than git.
>>
>> On Fri 6. Mar 2026 at 19:16, Peter G. <freebsd@disroot.org> wrote:
>>> On 03/03/2026 23:55, Nick Holland wrote>
>>>> So...give it a try at
>>>> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org
>>>> or
>>>> https://cvsweb.openbsd.org
>>>
>>> work much faster than before
>>>
>>> why not just ditch cvs for git and go cgit?

> It works well for OpenBSD and has it has been for 29 years. There is no
> point in evangelizing on git, hg, or any other version control system.

yes, there is. performance. also, old things get replaced by better
things, on their own with time. do you need examples?

> CVS works well for the use case here and if it's not broken, don't fix
> it.

it is broken. the web component can't handle automated traffic. there
are no better web components.

If they had gotten on all the VCS bandwagons over the years, the
> repo would have gone from CVS to SVN to Mercurial to Git by now. FreeBSD
> went from CVS to SVN to Git over that same time and have had many
> headaches over the years during those transitions and keeping version
> control history sane.

their cgit doesn't have automated traffic problem. or does it?

> Whenever people scream about wanting to change version control systems,
> they forget all the tooling and process that is built around it.
> Changing that isn't cheap or quick.

how much is it going to be? give me a number.

i bet the idea was on the table years ago... and somebody like you
suppressed it.... and here we are in 2026 with ancient version control
which can't handle fuck.

if only somebody, years ago, started working on it, in parallel to the
production cvs, even if with delays, even if with longer pauses, even if
with problems, it would have been completed by now.

but somebody like you, or maybe indeed just you, bitched about it, and
the work never started. is this what happened?

so this is your fault. this is where this whole bias and denial come from.

> I've worked on projects that have kept very old version control systems

i don't think you have, and even if so, those were ancient small
projects. youre not familiar with modern devops at all.

> running because all of the tooling was built around it.

give me a list of tools which cannot be re-ported from CVS to Git.
specifically here in this project.

a guy just wrote a web gui in Go overnight, quite an effort, and you
say... "we can't port them tools eh"

> programs run for 20+ years on CMVC (just when it had been EOLed, they
> eventually moved to git) and PVCS/Dimensions. The Dimensions people are
> staying on that because it would cost too much money to port all of
> their productivity aids and other utilities to git.

you make it stupidly sound like this is a commercial project. sounds
like a stupid excuse. as above, git ops are easy and pleasant.
volunteers would surface. not if the idea was squashed right away
because bias and denial, tho.

> That money would be spent elsewhere on delivering actual code rather than rearranging the
> furniture because someone wanted to put their mark on the project.
> Simply put, if it works, it works. No need to change it.

> Nobody is interested in your opinions about version control.

this is a public group, cunt. are you moderating it now?