Why not give git a try?

[grarpamp]

Hi. This is good topic. I am no body. But I want to mention things.
I've use RCS, CVS, SVN, Hg and Git. To me, first three are really
much one in same. Of later two still learning, Hg can be slightly
easier, but Git has simple analogs too, not much hard to get. We
all learn new thing. But overall, Git seems to be on curve as the
one become defacto for all good reasons/purpose in new world. Just
as was CVS. Coders will know it. Gitweb, etc. So it momentum
to maybe break ties, lame but can be true. I am ok with it.

Distributed also maybe, maybe, save project bandwidth, as ppl
tracking multiple branches should mirror and checkout locally. Not
checkout multiple branch over wire. And can work fully local. Yes,
maybe distrib not as much enforce commit from private coders often.
But people already have those involved/not, regular/not, central/not
habits, repo make no diff. Yet better, distrib enables some new
good models not possible before too, while still letting some old
style happen too.

Also, very important this one. Git provide hash authenticated chained
repo possibility by default and native with every commit from init
of new repo. CVS/SVN do not do that. FreeBSD is big project (with
big users). With big project infrastruct. With big group with commit
people login from bfe from some fubar systems sometime unknown. All
good ppl and systems yes, but deteching errors and provide proofs
and chains is important now days in IT worlds. Too, FreeBSD only
sign release cd's and only on maj.min release, not security branche,
releng branche etc. There is no strong trace back to repo, so link
is cut there. It is repo hash that should be sign, first before cd,
and from there all things roll down as extra bonus. Does pictures
on this important one be clear?

And if move beyond CVS/SVN legacy wanted, yes?, start tests,
eval, pick and move on :) My local stuffs went CVS to Git, but is
no matter that choice to this project topic. I try agnostic.