On Sunday 23 June 2002 22:14, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> To me the functionality provided by kbuild-2.5 with respect to shadow
> trees belongs to the SCM system.
> What kbuild-2.5 address is only the simplest part namely the compile step.
> A proper SCM system allow you to do parrallel development with a
> seperate integration branch, or whatever term the SCM in question
> like to use.
>
> Why do you see so much added value in kbuild support for shadow trees
> compared to what a proper SCM tool give you?
For my (linux on s390) purpose, shadow trees are the most important
feature of kb25, because they allow us to use a proper SCM at all.
Currently, we use a CVS repository that includes the official Linux tree
as well as our closed source drivers. I would love to use Bitkeeper, but
that's only possible if we can easily seperate the free from the the
nonfree stuff without having two complete (incompatible) repositories.
Shadow trees allow just that.
For most other people, the added value is that they don't have to use
the same SCM tool as anyone else. Giving the user a tarball with
a driver (or multiple ones, for that matter) is just so much easier
than telling him/her how to patch the source with all things that can
go wrong there.
Arnd <><
-------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/
_______________________________________________
kbuild-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kbuild-devel
