On 8/26/2020 9:45 AM, Nelgin wrote:
> 
> I totally agree that versioning systems are not meant for software
> distribution. Many sysops can barely scape by with Linux and CVS without
> throwing in the added complication of git.

Git is *NOT* any harder to use by someone not contributing than CVS 
is...  IMO it's actually easier to use than CVS/SVN, but that's just my 
own take.  Mostly because you don't have to deal with being offline 
trying to reach a server to lock a file.  Branching is crazy easy 
compared to what CVS/SVN do.

> I feel this is going to force those
> on the fence about giving up their BBS to go away, or may push others to not
> bother installing updates any more. I'm likely to be in that crowd. I don't
> have a lot of time to dedicate to my BBS right now as it is, without having
to
> jump through hoops to update it.

That's where the .zip downloads come in handly... Beyond that, if you're 
comfortable with your backups, then you should become more familiar with 
how things work.

> While I can understand this is useful for DM and other developers, I can only
> see this hurting sbbs in the end because cvs just works, and now it doesn't
> and sysops are going to be forced to make changes they don't want or don't
> need. I'm all for progress, but this seems like a regresion to me.

No, CVS does emphatically *NOT* "just work" ... There are reasons why 
Subversion (SVN) largely replaced CVS and why distributed source control 
is so much more popular today.

This is anything but a regression, it allows for more/broader 
contribution and for a BBS Sysop is largely a difference of your source 
co-mingled vs having it in a separate /sbbs/repo directory.

-- 
Michael J. Ryan
tracker1 +o Roughneck BBS

---
 þ Synchronet þ Roughneck BBS - coming back 2/2/20