Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:37:08 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: 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.
However: - 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 use.
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,
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |