From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Hopwood Subject: Re: bitkeeper gone in 2 weeks - which RCS? Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 12:51:56 +0100 Message-ID: <42B167DC.9080105@blueyonder.co.uk> References: <1118777205.2404.282.camel@localhost.localdomain><42AF3354.80603@intel.com><1118778631.2404.288.camel@localhost.localdomain><42AF36D3.408@intel.com><9cde8bff05061416313bd9a7c2@mail.gmail.com> <1118793054.10754.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <009101c57179$233cb610$0f01a8c0@zaphod> Reply-To: david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ronald G. Minnich wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Michael Paesold wrote: > >>Just another option: svk (http://svk.elixus.org/) >>It adds distribution on top of svn. > > my 'lessons learned' from linuxbios is if you have a research project in > area X, don't turn it into a research project into 'area X + a new SCM'. Absolutely. Another instance of that mistake was X = EROS (www.eros-os.org), a new SCM = OpenCM (www.opencm.org). -- David Hopwood