Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 13:16:33 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), dufault@hda.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How to use the sup'd CVS tree? Message-ID: <4345.825628593@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:18:54 MST." <199602291818.LAA11890@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This is right. It is one of the most annoying attributes of the SUP/CVS > setup. Really, you want the changes to come in as commit deltas and > then recommit them to your local CVS tree so you can locally use things > like vendor branches and revision tags. CTM doesn't buy you this either. I'm totally serious when I say that I'd be very interested to hear your ideas on this. I'd be the first to say that our current source code control and distrubtion picture could be a lot better and more intuitive than it is, but the old problem of having to make due with the materials available has generally taken precedence over engineering ideals. That's not to say we can't roll our own replacement (or adapt an existing system to our needs), but we should at least be clear on the design parameters of what we'd like, first. The whole CVS vs P3 vs ??? issue will be coming up fairly shortly anyway, trust me. It's not a bad time to be thinking about what we'd _like_ as opposed to what we're forced to settle for. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4345.825628593>