On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jon Smirl wrote:
Having used CVS and BitKeeper, BitKeeper is way better.
I will just add a big "Amen, Brother!" to that.
Yes, BitKeeper has license issues, and some people won't touch it. But
there are CVS/SVN gateways for that, and the kernel people (who I think
tend to be more religious about licenses than the average XFree86 person) seem to have finally accepted it.
Ugh - don't bet on it... XFree86 does flamewars pretty good. DRI is a little more sane though, and I'm definitely tired of CVS' poor performance when dealing with these large projects, so I'm pretty keen on trying out bitkeeper personally.
It sounds like it should be sophisticated enough to allow a transition where sourceforge cvs continues to work and be updated, and accept updates of its own. That is it *sounds* like we could have some developers using cvs, some bitkeeper but have changes to some notional "trunk" propogate to and be visible in both systems - if done rapidly enough there should be few conflicts requiring manual resolution.
Keith
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
