Is there any reason NOT to use git -masquerading-as-cvs as an upgrade to cvs?

We use CVS for 50 java projects that we develop using Eclipse and create using Hudson.

Now we have reached the point where we want to switch to something better, and I believe that using git disguise as a CVS server may be exactly what suits us in terms of the learning curve.

We have few, but long-lived branches - it is preferable on a subset of files (we would like to be able to have a specific client branch, where we can only have a few files that have really been changed, but add more files if necessary, and the tool should understand this) .

We are only in a few active developers.

Usually we work with the workspace for the main project with a full check of all the projects necessary for its creation. We do not use Maven and use ant to build using Hudson.

I understand that git -support-in-Eclipse has been accepted as an actual Eclipse project. Do you have any experience?

I will most likely configure a local git server for evaluation. I would appreciate advice on being explicitly looking for what might be unpleasant.


Edit:

We do not use $ Id $ or a similar keyword extension (as this causes changes in the source files that we are not interested in.


So, I would appreciate any impressions of git in scripts like ours :)


EDIT 2009-10-25: - . ( ) - . CVS, . , git , .

+3
2

:

CVS - VCS, CVS: .

Git - DVCS, = "" ( "" "",...).
Git "".
Git, ( ).

, Git, , "CVS-like" Git.

+2

git-cvsserver manpage:

CVS git.

. , , , .

CLI CVS Eclipse CVS. .

cvsserver SSH / pserver CVS 1.

CVS , GIT.

git-cvsserver GIT CVS-. , CVS, CVS- .

1. pserver ​​ GIT "pu" ( ), "git - cvsimport: cvs pserver.

+2

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1715506/


All Articles