Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 14:37:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson <robert@cyrus.watson.org> To: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> Cc: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BitKeeper (was Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990501143520.2670A-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905011111540.16544-100000@feral.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So will bitkeeper provide a nice interface for migrating code from an existing and well-established CVS repository to whatever they use? I'm quite happy to allow them to test bitkeeper in a production environment before using it in one myself, needless to say. :) On Sat, 1 May 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > > > # > > #:BitKeeper should be ready soon. > > #: > > #:Once it's been proven stable, might it be a better alternative to CVS? > > #: > > #:H > > # > > # Maybe, but we wouldn't know for a couple of years. You don't just go > > # trusting 15+ years worth of source history to a program that has just > > # barely been written. I think the Linux people are making a huge mistake > > # by not using CVS. > > > > >From what I gather (and I could very well be wrong), but I > > think BitKeeper is somewhat based on SCCS. I'm not advocating > > that we ditch CVS either, just that BitKeeper may not be as new > > and fresh as some would like us to believe. Looks like an old > > friend (or nemisis) dressed in a new set of rags. :) > > No, not really. Larry's hostile to RCS because of it's lack of checksum. > I've asked him about it a couple of times and he's not really excited > about an RCS bottom end. It could be done if you insisted on it (I mean, > it's GPL'd code, right?) but it's not something he would support. > > Bitkeeper is a substantial improvement over CVS and Perforce. It's really > a nice piece of work done by somebody who *really* knows his stuff. > Remember that Larry saved Sun from complete disaster by inventing NSElite > (which Bitkeeper is emphatically a granchild of) in time to keep 1000 > engineers from rising up and tearing Eric Schmidt to threads over his > insistence that "The Sun/SVR4 merge *SHALL* use NSE and the [ broken ] > translucent filesystem if we're here until the year 2000 doing it!". > > Personally, I'm happy with CVS if you have a model a single main stream of > development. It's a disaster when you have to maintain separate > development clusters. And very few other packages really do any kind of > job of this either. > > Look- if Linux adopts Bitkeeper, you really should pay attention to that. > I doubt you'd find a more difficult set of software engineers to keep code > in sync for than the Linux folks- if Bitkeeper works for them and > essentially makes a rational release train for Linux, then a major > glaring flaw in Linux' strategy that keeps serious businesses from really > being able to trust it will be removed. Think about it. > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > Robert N Watson robert@fledge.watson.org http://www.watson.org/~robert/ PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37 ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1 Carnegie Mellon University http://www.cmu.edu/ TIS Labs at Network Associates, Inc. http://www.tis.com/ Safeport Network Services http://www.safeport.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990501143520.2670A-100000>