Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:29:32 -0600 | From | "Jonathan A. George" <> | Subject | Re: Kernel SCM: When does CVS fall down where it REALLY matters? |
| |
Rik van Riel wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Jonathan A. George wrote: > >>I am considering adding some enhancements to CVS to address deficiencies >>which adversely affect my productivity. >> > >>... I would like to know what the Bitkeeper users consider the minimum >>acceptable set of improvements that CVS would require for broader >>acceptance. >> > >1) working merges > Can you be more specific?
>2) atomic checkins of entire patches, fast tags > I was thinking about something like automatically tagged globally descrete patch sets. It would then be fairly simple to create a tool that simply scanned, merged, and checked in that patch as a set. Is something like this what you have in mind?
>3) graphical 2-way merging tool like bitkeeper has > (this might not seem essential to people who have > never used it, but it has saved me many many hours) > Would having something like VIM or Emacs display a patch diff with providing keystroke level merge and unmerge get toward helpful for something like this, or is the need too complex to address that way?
>4) distributed repositories > Can you be more specific? (i.e. are you looking for merging, syncronization, or copies? In other words what do you need that CVS + rsync are unacceptable for?)
>5) ability to exchange changesets by email > That's a good one, and shouldn't be too bad if you like what I said for #2
>regards, > >Rik >
--Jonathan--
- 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/
| |