Upgrade a CVS server to something else?

[kentborg-KwkGvOEf1og at public.gmane.org (Kent Borg)]

Mark Woodward wrote:
> I think svn's lack of tagging makes it a deal breaker.
>   

Amazing that a source code control system can leave out tagging, isn't it?

> Is git any good?
> What about Mercurial? Bazaar?
>   

Depends...

How about this suggestion: Leave your CVS server alone for the moment. 
The hegemonic source code control program of the moment is git, so learn 
a little git. (Install git, "cd some_interesting_dir ; git init", and 
start poking around.)

If you like it, cool, decision made. If not, you will have learned 
something. (Every self-respecting geek should know some git.)

git opens up vast territories of power, which makes for a significant 
learning curve to understand the new problems--even if the tool were 
perfect. For a single programmer working alone, not using all the 
features, git need not be bad at all.

I am a fan of O'Reilly's /Version Control with Git/ by Jon Loeliger.

Wrapping your head around the non-centralized nature might disorient you 
some.

Tip: you can avoid some of the "flexibility" that isn't compatible with 
an authoritative, central server:

Give the containing directory a ".git" extension,
"--bare" (keeps you from accidentally playing inside there directly, 
forces only remote access)
"--shared=true" (Linux group membership controls access, prevents merge 
conflicts from being created), and
"receive.denyDeletes true" (only new commits can be created, old commits 
cannot be removed).

In your daily working directories, go ahead and use the defaults and 
play, the above settings are for the central copy. I realize those 
details likely won't make much sense right now, but go learn some git, 
and once they do make sense you will have largely arrived.


There are tools to help CVS people use git, but I haven't used CVS in a 
decade and haven't looked at the details.


-kb