On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 12:08, Peter Nixon wrote: > 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..
While I use subversion for my work, I'm not ready to push others into it. I have experienced the berkley DB crashing on certain commits regularly. There are still pretty important bugs left in it. Well at least in the revisions I am currently using. My repository is on a .26 while my workstation is using .33. BTW, Don't use reply all on these lists. I will get a copy via the normal mailing list and do not need a copy that you sent outside of the list. -- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
