On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 05:53:41PM +0900, Horms wrote: [...] > > > svk may be different, if so, > > > this is a excellent time to discuss that. > > > > It just gets crazy if it can't find merge points. > > Could you elaborate a little. I think you are the only one using > svk at this point. So perhaps you are seeing problems that aren't > apparent when svn is used. > > When you say merge point? Does svk dictate that your head is > in trunk/ and directories in branch/ are siblings of it? > Or is it just a matter of knowing where each tree is in > the overall hierachy. >
If we're going to start catering towards people using the kernel repository with distribution revision control tools, why not just use a proper distributed revision control system? I'm quite tired of dealing w/ SVN; I consider all these discussions about branches, naming, etc to be a complete waste of time brought about by SVN's utterly stupid (lack of) branching and naming policy. When doing offline development, I've tended to work using bazaar; online development usually consists of me flooding #debian-kernel with minor little commits, as well as dealing w/ conflicts as people write changelog entries at the same time I do. It feels a whole lot like SVN wastes a lot more time than it saves. I can deal w/ SVN for the immediate future, but if people start using svk anyways, I suggest we simply switch to something like git(/cogito) or bzr. </rant> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
