Comment by simias

2 years ago

All of these reasons boil down to "if it ain't broke" and "that's what we're used to".

Switching VCS for a project of this size is always complicated and OpenBSD devs are famously "old school" and conservative with their software choices.

I used to use CVS before switching to SVN and later DCVS like Mercurial and Git. The claim that "it is unlikely that any alternative versioning system would improve the developer's productivity or quality" is absolutely laughable IMO.

This is especially true nowadays where CVS support in modern tooling, if it even exists, is usually legacy and poorly maintained.

3 comments

simias

Reply
AshamedCaptain  2 years ago

> All of these reasons boil down to "if it ain't broke" and "that's what we're used to".

"Works for us". Which is a pretty good argument.

> The claim that "it is unlikely that any alternative versioning system would improve the developer's productivity or quality" is absolutely laughable IMO.

Why is it laughable exactly? I mean for me I can't use CVS due to the lack of atomic directory checkins, but if they don't need them or they have already a system in place which may even better tie with their development/release style than any generic VCS could, why bother?

> This is especially true nowadays where CVS support in modern tooling, if it even exists, is usually legacy and poorly maintained.

You make that sound as a disadvantage...