[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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
    >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



    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.029 / U:86.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site