Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 18 Jan 2002, Derek Atkins wrote:
>> Have you considered changing over to using bitkeeper instead of CVS? >> Then individual developers could have their own local repositories and >> make local deltas, and then they could set up their changesets to >> openafs-gatekeepers. When you apply a changeset users could pull it >> down into their own repositories. >> It would give developers the chance to make local "commits" for change >> history during development without requiring access to the global >> repository. > At minimum, there are licensing issues with BitKeeper to consider; I > assume we also need to re-export to a CVS tree to continue to provide > anoncvs. Personally, I'm watching Subversion very closely. Their mission is to release a much better CVS, they don't have the licensing problems that Bitkeeper has, and they have a commitment to CVS compatibility that I don't believe arch has. I'm not sure how well they handle the distributed repository thing, though. Bitkeeper change sets are very nice (arch also does something similar). -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
