[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:0.073 / U:0.772 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site