[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: CVS server for linux kernel [was Re: Kernel 2.0.36pre11 uploaded]
In <>, Alan Cox wrote: 
> > On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Its hassle for me to do, so I dont bother. I know other people were
> > > doing them for .35
> >
> > Why there is no CVS server for linux kernel.
> Because Linus doesnt like CVS. CVS is [IMHO] exactly how the Linux
> kernel 2.1.x stuff should be run simply because Linus doesnt (and now
> by his own admission doesnt) scale.
> Linus does have some good reasons for not liking CVS in that CVS has
> no real control by 'area'. It lacks the ability to easily say things like
> xyz has remote cvs access to drivers/sound/*, and to include/linux/sound.h
> but if its the latter notify me.

Such a scheme would be very hard to implement if it has to be secure
against an intentional attempt to change something one isn't allowed

If it's not water-proofed anyway and if very few people have access to
the CVS tree, the problem should be solvable by obeying to a
policy. NetBSD does it that way and I never heard about people
committing to anything they wern't allowed to.

Readonly access is no problem anway given cvsup, annoncvs etc.

The most important point (for me) is that currently no history and no
log messages are visible. CVS would solve this, even if only one
person commits.

Martin Cracauer <>
BSD User Group Hamburg, Germany

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:44    [W:0.072 / U:50.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site