On Sat, 1 May 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > > > > :BitKeeper should be ready soon. > > > : > > > :Once it's been proven stable, might it be a better alternative to CVS? > > > : > > > :H > > > > > > Maybe, but we wouldn't know for a couple of years. You don't just go > > > trusting 15+ years worth of source history to a program that has just > > > barely been written. I think the Linux people are making a huge > > > mistake > > > by not using CVS. > > > > My thoughts almost exactly (I think the Linux people have already made a > > huge mistake and are compounding it). > > > > But they are using CVS- sparclinux has been under anon CVS for years. > > The problem with CVS is that it *just doesn't work* if you try and have > truly separate development streams. Branches and corrupted trees and > directory renames are as pleasant and easy in CVS as trying to deal > with Charles Hannum and Jason Thorpe in NetBSD (crazed weasels on > angel dust going for your nether body parts is a comparative tickle). And > don't even *begin* to talk about merging... > > Don't get me wrong- *I* like CVS and how it's used for FreeBSD right now. > But if you begin to have separate branch development models and want to > really have a flexible source tree that you can repartition and repackage > at will, CVS is not your friend.
I agree about CVS' limitations completely. I know that a lot of Linux projects are under their own CVS control but what kind of history is available for code once it reaches Linus? Does Linus have a CVS repository which stores file-by-file history for the kernel? -- Doug Rabson Mail: d...@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 442 9037 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
