On Thursday 08 January 2004 18:59, Steven Critchfield wrote: > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:32, C. Maj wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Chris Albertson waxed: > > > (see update command in cvs manpage). So, yes you could have > > > multiple lines of developmentand merge them back into a main line. > > > > Yeah and live in a nightmare. The kernel only uses CVS as a > > daily (or whatever) dump of what's in BitKeeper. People > > submit patches against CVS, sure, but the "branching" is > > done with BK repositories. > > > > http://www.bitkeeper.com/ > > Well without dredging up the BK vs. every other revision control > software flame war, lets just point out that that wouldn't be a viable > option here. > > I would suggest subversion, but it is easier to stick with what more > people know at this moment and not force anyone to deal with the > conversion of the tree one more time.
Subversion is hardly a great leap from CVS with regards learning curve. Simply replace all "cvs" commands with "svs". Of course there are some extra, but I guess they are not so necessary for simple usage.. SVS would seem to be the best fit for an upgrade should one been required.. -- Peter Nixon http://www.peternixon.net/ PGP Key: http://www.peternixon.net/public.asc _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
