[lkml]   [1998]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux-2.1.98..

    On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
    > >
    > > Using the CVS tree is not going to help that.
    > I think the CVS could help: with every commit, there is a log message
    > telling the purpose of the commit.

    I use CVS for work, and I know there is a commit message.

    - not everybody uses it. At work, we force people to use it by mailing
    out the commit messages to an internal newsgroup, so everybody sees
    when a commit doesn't have a good message. Without that kind of
    pressure to write the message, the messages tend to be fairly bad, at
    least as far as I have seen.
    - the commit messages go into a big black hole, and never come back. You
    _can_ get at them, but you certainly don't get them easily, and you
    _definitely_ don't get them when you try to make a combination patch.

    > If you were in the CVS, you could decide on a daily basis which commits
    > should go out, which should be rewritten and which are just fine...

    I _do_ use CVS - just not for the kernel - and I know its limitations.

    CVS does _not_ support having separate branches very well. There is
    support for branching, but it is by no means very good or very easy to

    It is non-trivial to get _only_ the changes that correspond to a certain
    series of commits, and to leave out the changes that everybody else have
    been doing. At least I haven't found anything to do anything like that.

    In short, CVS is not _nearly_ good enough. Sorry,


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

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:42    [W:0.053 / U:0.292 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site