From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IXdJJ-0005eg-Sq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:40:17 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IXdJI-0005dC-DO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:40:17 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IXdJI-0005d5-9H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:40:16 -0400 Received: from phoenix.bawue.net ([193.7.176.60] helo=mail.bawue.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IXdJH-0008WD-RD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:40:16 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:21:03 +0100 From: Thiemo Seufer Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu Changelog Makefile Makefile.target TODO ae... Message-ID: <20070918132103.GJ9972@networkno.de> References: <1190016521.14938.148.camel@rapid> <46d6db660709170127t415b3a06vbef6c5dd19cd172f@mail.gmail.com> <1190022138.14938.153.camel@rapid> <1190027998.12960.3.camel@panther> <46d6db660709170518k9a0305as6e429669b5f1b66a@mail.gmail.com> <68676e00709171414j4bf64c83p8a6a01897708f1cb@mail.gmail.com> <1190065596.14938.203.camel@rapid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1190065596.14938.203.camel@rapid> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "J. Mayer" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org J. Mayer wrote: [snip] > Another point is CVS is an industry standard. It has many drawbacks but > is prooven to do its job as specified in a very reliable way. For now, > not such a thing for git, afaik. If it ever become the new industry > standard, after having prooven its reliability and long term stability, > then you may be able to expect everyone to use it. > Did anyone has done a long term comparison of CVS and git running on two copies of the > same production repository and have made sure that any extraction at any > time of any data (ie, checkout in the present and any date in the past, > diffs, ...) of the two gives exactly the same result ? Please show me > such studies and I may reconsider my position... If not, you can always > use it, closing your eyes and praying for everything to be OK... Not exactly a study, but www.linux-mips.org moved a fairly complex CVS repository to GIT, and replaced the original CVS access with the git-cvs daemon. No were/are no known inconsistencies. Thiemo