Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:18:53 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone |
| |
Hi!
> But anyway, what made[1] Bitkeeper suck less is the real DAG > structure. Neither arch nor subversion seem to have understood that > and, as a result, don't and won't provide the same level of semantics. > Zero hope for Linus to use them, ever. They're needed for any > decently distributed development process.
Can you elaborate? I thought that this "real DAG" structure is more or less equivalent to each developer having his owm CVS repository...
> Hell, arch is still at the update-before-commit level. I'd have hoped > PRCS would have cured that particular sickness in SCM design ages ago. > > Atomicity, symbolic links, file renames, splits (copy) and merges (the > different files suddendly ending up being the same one) are somewhat > important, but not the interesting part. A good distributed DAG > structure and a quality 3-point version "merge" is what you actually > need to build bk-level SCMs.
If I fixed CVS renames, added atomic commits, splits and merges, and gave each developer his own CVS repository, would I be in same league as bk? Ie 10 times slower but equivalent functionality?
(3 point merge should be doable for CVS to and would be good thing anyway, right?) Pavel -- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...
- 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/
| |