CVS version control system
Shares rank 12 of 26 version control systems by recommenders
People recommend CVS for its long reliability across platforms and its role in shaping version control. Critics agree its branching support was poor and its data model was weak.
People recommend CVS for its long reliability across platforms and its role in shaping version control. Critics agree its branching support was poor and its data model was weak.
35 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 15
- criticize it
- 20
- approval share
- 43%
Recommended in 9 of 13 months
- November 2025: recommended
- December 2025: recommended
- January 2026: recommended
- February 2026: recommended
- March 2026: not recommended
- April 2026: recommended
- May 2026: recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: not recommended
- August 2026: recommended
- September 2026: recommended
- October 2026: recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 15 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, met.
- 0.7 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, not met.
- Recommended in 9 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Still works reliably across platforms
“CVS worked twenty years ago and it still works today for all the platforms OpenBSD supports”
Comment from 19 Oct 2026 in “Wine ported to OpenBSD” “CVS just keeps working fine”
Comment from 10 Apr 2026 in “We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git” “I still use it for NetSBD source”
Comment from 26 May 2026 in “Dropbox CEO Drew Houston to step down” Preferred over later systems by some
“CVS was amazing compared to them”
Comment from 17 Dec 2025 in “How SQLite is tested” “by many aspects, I preferred cvs”
Comment from 14 Apr 2026 in “What is jj and why should I care?”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Poor branching support
“CVS had terrible support for branches.”
Comment from 23 Dec 2025 in “Debian's Git Transition” “the branching facilities were awful”
Comment from 12 Aug 2026 in “Branching Paths” Weak data model, risky repo edits
“svn/cvs just had a braindead data model.”
Comment from 11 Feb 2026 in “Ex-GitHub CEO Launches a New Developer Platform for AI Agents” “When someone made a mistake and you had to go in and edit the repo files in binary format it was genuinely terrifying.”
Comment from 14 Apr 2026 in “What is jj and why should I care?” Far less usable than Git
“None of them even close to Git usability-wise.”
Comment from 28 Apr 2026 in “Ted Nyman – High Performance Git” “they were extremely different to Git in the way they worked and lost for many reasons”
Comment from 22 Apr 2026 in “GitHub CLI now collects pseudoanonymous telemetry” Dated and hard to use
“CVS and RCS and friends were infants; barely more than copying directories or zip files around.”
Comment from 15 Feb 2026 in “Windows NT/OS2 Design Workbook” “CVS was still horrible and in a lot, though.”
Comment from 11 Feb 2026 in “Ex-GitHub CEO Launches a New Developer Platform for AI Agents” “cvs was a crime against humanity”
Comment from 11 Feb 2026 in “Ex-GitHub CEO Launches a New Developer Platform for AI Agents”
Other version control systems people recommend
The four most recommended other version control systems, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Criticize | Approval | Months | Owned | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Git | 814 | 503 | 62% | 13 | 15 yrs42 owners | — |
| Jujutsu (jj) | 335 | 106 | 76% | 13 | 1 yr21 owners | Approved |
| Mercurial | 121 | 43 | 74% | 12 | 19 yrs7 owners | Approved |
| jj (Jujutsu) | 115 | 37 | 76% | 12 | 1 yr7 owners | Approved |
| CVS version control systemThis page | 15 | 20 | 43% | 9 | — | — |
What people said
33 of the 36 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“CVS worked twenty years ago and it still works today for all the platforms OpenBSD supports”
“using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem”
“the horrible CVS and SVN ones where clicking on a file name definitely didn't do what you expected”
“Sometimes, not being able to work independently can be an advantage.”
“it really wasn’t all that bad”
“the branching facilities were awful”
“with all the drawbacks of those”
“I still use it for NetSBD source”
“CVS though.. that was harder to do right.”
“they still use CVS, "stability" is an understatement!”
“it strongly encouraged trunk based development”
“I didn't like cvs (also still true, but thankfully now irrelevant)”
“None of them even close to Git usability-wise.”
“RCS as a tool had virtues over SVN and CVS”
“they were extremely different to Git in the way they worked and lost for many reasons”
“by many aspects, I preferred cvs”
“When someone made a mistake and you had to go in and edit the repo files in binary format it was genuinely terrifying.”
“filled a void by being much better than CVS”
“CVS just keeps working fine”
“CVS revolutionized how we think of code versioning”
“a horrible breakup with CVS”
“technical mishaps of those source control systems”
“and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem”
“CVS and RCS and friends were infants; barely more than copying directories or zip files around.”
“svn/cvs just had a braindead data model.”
“cvs was a crime against humanity”
“CVS was still horrible and in a lot, though.”
“all the CVS and Rite Aids shut down in the past few years”
“I was forced to use both CVS and SVN in a thankfully very distant past”
“CVS had terrible support for branches.”
“CVS was amazing compared to them”
“CVS with manual deployments”
“they allowed me to leverage that for my group”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.