比 SVN 或 Git 更喜欢 CVS 的原因 [英] Reasons to prefer CVS over SVN or Git

问题描述

我刚刚发现了一个仍在使用 CVS 的开源项目.我想知道现在是否还有任何理由更喜欢 CVS 而不是 SVN 或 Git.(我不认为懒得迁移作为答案！;-) )

I just found an open source project that still uses CVS. I wondered if there were still any reasons to prefer CVS over SVN or Git nowadays. (I don't count being too lazy to migrate as an answer! ;-) )

CVS 有其他两个缺少的东西吗?比如说，支持 $OS 还是 $fancy_tool?

Does CVS have anything the other two lack? Say, support for $OS or $fancy_tool?

在《使用SVN比使用CVS有什么优势?"有详细的答案为什么不使用 CVS.但我想反过来问.CVS 不可能全是坏事.或者是吗?

In "What are the advantages of using SVN over CVS?" there are elaborated answers why not to use CVS. But I want to ask the other way around. CVS can't be all bad. Or is it?

推荐答案

我仍然使用 CVS 来处理我自己的一些个人事情.

I still use CVS for some of my own personal stuff.

与 Git 不同的是，您可以轻松地仅检出存储库的一个子集.

Unlike with Git, you can easily check out only a subset of the repository.

CVS 为每个文件分配顺序版本号(1.1、1.2、1.3、...).在 Git 中，版本号是 40 个字符的十六进制校验和.在 SVN 中，修订号在整个存储库中是连续的；给定的数字适用于整个存储库.

And CVS assigns sequential version numbers (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, ...) to each file. In Git, version numbers are 40-character hexadecimal checksums. In SVN, revision numbers are sequential across the entire repository; a given number applies to the entire repository.

CVS 允许您在检出文件时将版本号扩展到每个文件中，从而无需参考文件来自的存储库即可轻松识别文件的版本.

And CVS lets you expand version numbers into each file when checking it out, making it easy to identify which version a file is without reference to the repository it came from.

因此，当存储库是大部分不相关文件的集合时，我发现 CVS(有时甚至是 RCS)很方便，而且我更感兴趣的是跟踪单个文件的更改，但整个存储库的修订并不是特别有意义.

So I find CVS (and sometimes even RCS) convenient when the repository is a collection of largely unrelated files, and I'm more interested in tracking changes on individual files, but revisions of the repository as a whole are not particularly meaningful.

(如果存储库包含用于构建单个程序或库的源文件，则情况并非如此；在这种情况下，您需要整个项目的连贯历史.)

(That's not going to be the case if the repository contains source files used to build a single program or library; in that case, you want a coherent history for the project as a whole.)

最后，CVS 将每个文件的历史记录存储在一个文件中(与 RCS 使用的格式相同)，格式相对简单.至少有一次，我不得不手动重建已损坏的已保存 CVS 文件.我不确定如何使用 SVN 或 Git 做到这一点.

Finally, CVS stores the history for each file in a single file (with the same format used by RCS) with a relatively straightforward format. At least once, I've had to manually reconstruct a saved CVS file that had become corrupted. I'm not sure how I could have done that with SVN or Git.

更新:这个问题引起了一些无法解释的反对.我只能猜测原因(而且我不太担心偶尔会被否决)，但也许有些读者认为我提倡 CVS 作为比 SVN 或 Git 更好的系统.我不是;我只是指出 CVS 在一些相当狭窄的情况下可以有一些优势.

UPDATE: This question has drawn a couple of unexplained downvotes. I can only guess at the reasons (and I don't worry much about the occasional downvote), but perhaps some readers think I'm advocating CVS as a better system than SVN or Git. I am not; I'm merely pointing out that CVS can have some advantages in some fairly narrow circumstances.

这篇关于比 SVN 或 Git 更喜欢 CVS 的原因的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！