On 2008-09-01, Marcos Del Puerto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course that eCos centric has to choose the VCS that best > fits their likes and requirements,
Why do you say that? eCos does not belong to eCosCentric. > but does eCos really need a distributed VCS? Yes. > I do not know how eCos is developed but I do not think there > are eCos development groups sparse around the globe who commit > frecuently changes? Yes, there are developers outside eCosCentric. > Has eCos centric outsourced parts of the development kernel to > other companies? You seem to be under the impression that eCos is the property of eCosCentric. The FSF holds the copyrights to eCos, and some development goes on outside of eCosCentric. I'd probably vote for Subversion, except for the fact that Subversion is what we use internally. Since subversion treats the CVS directory and its contents as normal files, it's rather handy the way it is. I can check out a source tree from CVS and then check it into Subversion (CVS directories and all). Merging in changes from the "official" tree is simply a matter of doing a "cvs update" followed by an "svn commit". At any time I can do either a "cvs diff" or an "svn diff". Still, if the consensus was to move to Subversion for eCos, I wouldn't complain. -- Grant -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
