[cvsnt] Betr.: CVSNT to CVS
tony.hoyle at march-hare.com
Tue Apr 7 20:04:42 BST 2009
Bryce Schober wrote:
> This last point can't be stressed enough, in my experience. For whatever
> reason, CVSNT never got the widespreadd acceptance in the software
> development community that other SCMs have.
I disagree. The download figures disagree with you too. CVSNT was as
mainstream as it gets.. it was never a Firefox or Redhat, but millions
of people use it every day.
Of course, from a commercial point of view acceptance means nothing
unless it generates revenue. It's been said repeatedly that if 1% of
people who used CVSNT bought 1 copy of Suite we could employ a number of
developers full time. If that model won't work then we're content to
ship to 1% of the number of users and guarantee paying my salary every
month. That's a sad thing for someone like me, who loves opensource, to
be saying. Yes, I have considered removing opensource support and just
leaving commercial. I haven't though.. because I still think opensource
is important, and so does Arthur.
You think mainstream is important.. It really isn't. cvsnt was never
conceived as such.. it happened by accident. Maybe evs will, maybe not.
evs however is under a very different model to cvsnt.. it's
fundamentally commercial although (most of) the source code is freely
> And so, when you do finally get to that point where the newer features make
> a solid business case in your scenario, you'll be stuck without an easy
> upgrade path.
The point of EVS is you don't *need* an upgrade path. We just update
evs to support the new clients as required. The work seamlessly and
there's no work to do and no upgrade cost.
Version control really doesn't change - at its core all systems are
basically alike. Even the distributed systems aren't fundamentally
different (and a git interface to evs has been mooted already).
What we've ended up is a multitude of new mutually incompatible systems
written all to answer a single need of one developer, but all copying
each other. I've long since realized that's a stupid way for the
industry to continue.
EVS is me going "Screw it, I'm not playing any more" and writing a
system that can talk to anything, given enough time and coffee. From
the outset we handle migration from different systems, and because we
can pretend to be different types of server, migration out again isn't
hard either, should it be needed.
Crucially EVS is *not* a new version control system. It will be
whatever you want it to be. It can be CVSNT, or SVN, or TFS or
(potentially) Git. Or all of them at once, if you want. There is no
'EVS Protocol' and there never will be.
So you can upgrade to 'Version Control system of the week' and have
*exactly* the same problems a couple of years down the line, or you can
use something that's going to grow with you. And if it doesn't...
there will be lots of ways to migrate - because nobody has to support
evs specifically.. it handles the support itself.
More information about the cvsnt