Terris wrote:
> This is a good example of why Microsoft
> has nothing to fear from open source.
I wouldn't use cvs as an example... it's in the same state gcc was in
before it forked and became egcs (which has since become the official
release again).
If you look at stuff like the linux kernel, or XFree86, their
development moves quite quickly. Stuff is tried, either works or
doesn't work, then moves on.
Even cvsnt moves quicker. If someone sends me a patch I look at it -
90% of them are 'obviously correct', a few need some clarification.
I'll then put the patch in with a 'try this it's new and might not work
properly' warning... if nobody complains it stays in.
I've only really broken the tree once that I can remember, and that
version never got released. cvsnt would be much worse off if I hadn't
applied, for example, the diff patches (which reduced the number of
false conflicts to almost zero).
> Of course, to be fair, something like
> this would never happen with the Perl
> tree.
A good example... The new perl 6 stuff looks interesting.
Tony
--
Don't click on this sig - a cyberwoozle will eat your underwear.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nothing-on.tv
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
