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

Dave Jones
2002-03-09T02:25:38Z

On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 06:52:38PM -0700, Val Henson wrote:

> I strongly recommend that anyone attempting to make CVS a viable
> replacement for BitKeeper start out by actually using BitKeeper.
> You're so used to being crippled by CVS that you don't even know what
> you're missing.

Agreed. And I suggest anyone doing such a study investigate all
the different parts of bitkeeper, not just its file-management /
distributed repository features.

Little things make a lot of difference. Things like per-file
comments on checkins instead of a single per-checking comment.
And ease of use for some really mundane merge-tasks (See my earlier
mail in this thread for details)

It's only through actual usage patterns that you'll see all the
neat time-saving gizmo's in there.

--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs