Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:25:00 +0100 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: Kernel SCM: When does CVS fall down where it REALLY matters? |
| |
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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |