Re: Kernel SCM: When does CVS fall down where it REALLY matters?

Eli
2002-03-08T21:59:29Z

Jonathan A. George wrote:
> My respect for BK is certainly been enhanced by this
> discussion, but I still would prefer a free (or failing that GPL)
> license. ;-)
>
> Comments?

A comment/request.
Take your list of requirements and see how each system "we" (as in
kernel hackers) use stacks up and post that to the list.

Be sure to include ARCH, Bitkeeper, CVS, diff&patch, emacs, SCCS,
Subversion, and any others I've missed... I don't know what all the
options are, and that is something that would be useful to know.
(Also, consider "bundles" such as CVS+cervisia+tkdiff or something).
The list should have comments about each rather than just a checklist,
so you give an idea of quality of implementations as well.
Actually, Larry McVoy might have such a compilation in his sales
materials, or should. ;)

Also, you didn't mention Subversion, which is a Free license, and has
many of the same stated goals as you have. There is some decent
documentation on their design and some discussion about _why_ they made
their choices. That should be worth-while reading regardless of the
path you choose to pursue. You might consider that if Subversion does
half of your goals it might be easier to add to it than start from CVS
or from scratch...

Comments?

Eli
disclaimer: I use CVS because it is what I know and it is available
"everywhere". I'm planning to use Subversion at some future date.
Plans subject to change based upon additional knowledge, partly from
this list. *shrug*
--------------------. "If it ain't broke now,
Eli Carter \ it will be soon." -- crypto-gram
eli.carter(a)inet.com `-------------------------------------------------