CVS "just works?" (was RE: Bazaar book from Packt)

JP Vossen jp at
Fri Sep 6 23:17:03 UTC 2013

> Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:08:28 -0500
 > From: "Bulgrien, Kevin"> <Kevin.Bulgrien at>


> I've had a long-term desire to incorporate a newer tool
> with benefits of a modern VCS.  Until Bazaar caught my interest,
> other VCS seemed to overly complicate a transition away from the
> simplicity of CVS or introduce problems as, or more, gnarly than CVS'
> failings.  Our developers don't want to have to be VCS wizards.

I totally agree, which is why I find everyone else's love of git so 
confusing.  I do not want to have to know as much about the guts of the 
tool as git requires in order to not shoot myself in the foot, and I 
*certainly* don't want to have to try to explain all of it to other 
folks who don't understand or want to use a VCS in the first place!

> We still use CVS because it "just works", doesn't get in the way.

Unless you tag every single commit, or change only a single file at a 
time, I have to disagree there.  CVS is fundamentally broken because of 
the way it does everything "per file."  (Yes, I understand the RCS guts 
and I know why it does it that way and it was a mind blowing 
breakthrough in its time and yes I still have to use it at $WORK too...  :)

Every VCS newer than CVS at least gets that part right, though I suspect 
your "gnarly" comments are directed at git and maybe SVN, and again I 
agree on both.  Everything but SVN at least work kinda the same, but the 
well--bazaar--way SVN does branches, tags and properties really makes my 
head hurt almost as much as git does.  :-)


My $0.02,
JP Vossen, CISSP            |:::======|
My Account, My Opinions     |=========|
"Microsoft Tax" = the additional hardware & yearly fees for the add-on
software required to protect Windows from its own poorly designed and
implemented self, while the overhead incidentally flattens Moore's Law.

More information about the bazaar mailing list