Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 13:48:33 -0700 (PWT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905011343060.16888-100000@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905012137130.555-100000@herring.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > > :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. > > My thoughts almost exactly (I think the Linux people have already made a > huge mistake and are compounding it). > But they are using CVS- sparclinux has been under anon CVS for years. The problem with CVS is that it *just doesn't work* if you try and have truly separate development streams. Branches and corrupted trees and directory renames are as pleasant and easy in CVS as trying to deal with Charles Hannum and Jason Thorpe in NetBSD (crazed weasels on angel dust going for your nether body parts is a comparative tickle). And don't even *begin* to talk about merging... Don't get me wrong- *I* like CVS and how it's used for FreeBSD right now. But if you begin to have separate branch development models and want to really have a flexible source tree that you can repartition and repackage at will, CVS is not your friend. 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.LNX.4.04.9905011343060.16888-100000>