Re: Another Windows Joke / 2.4 kernel
I've been using a 2.3.99pre9 kernel for a while now, with absolutely NO problems, I guess I should update soon though : ) -ben -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- "slide" to www.euglug.org in lake'ch, my kin... 4 Ix Finally, I (this text) would be delighted to be included, in whole or in part, in your next discussion of self-reference. With that in mind, please allow me to appologize in advance for infecting you. rant cut, available in archive shipped in February, and Linux 2.4 hasn't. And it's why I won't wait for Service Pack 3 before I install Linux 2.4. Linux 2.4 test kernels are often quite stable... because of the very release early ideals. The 'final' kernel release will be when it's ripe, regardless of the commericial pressure (and there is some now). ... I would like to know how commercial open source projects handle this dilemma. They have the same incentives to deliver crap as commercial software, it's just more obvious when they do. Yea, let's have a thread on this? I have 2 profs who are very interested in this problem. ... very neat. CVS is really lacking for some things Seth (others too?), what do you want cvs to do? I've used it for 3 projects, just the basic command-line tool w/ options, but notice thatadd-ons like sourceforge itself, and emacs frontends add a lot of usefulness... I've been noting-but-pleased with it, and wonder what else I'd want from it...
CVS (was: Another Windows Joke / 2.4 kernel)
Ben Barrett wrote: very neat. CVS is really lacking for some things Seth (others too?), what do you want cvs to do? I've used it for 3 projects, just the basic command-line tool w/ options, but notice thatadd-ons like sourceforge itself, and emacs frontends add a lot of usefulness... I've been noting-but-pleased with it, and wonder what else I'd want from it... I'd better not tell you then, no reason to spoil your contentment. (-: Take a look at the top level page on the subversion site for what the subversives want to fix. http://subversion.tigris.org/ But the two main things are: 1. Commits are atomic at file level, not project level. That means that if I change three files and check them in, the repository goes through three states, only one of which is consistent. Worse, if I'm checking out a big project across a slow network and it takes an hour, I'll get versions of files from anytime in that hour. In some projects I've worked on, it's been basically impossible to get a consistent snapshot, because files were coming in faster than I could check out and test a tree. The IRIX kernel tree was that way. (SGI used a homegrown alternative to CVS, but it was similar enough that it had the same problem.) 2. CVS doesn't support renaming files. When you rename a file, CVS thinks you deleted the old one and started a new one. That means all the edit history of the old file is not associated with the new file. -- Kbob [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.jogger-egg.com/
