Archives
Archives
| From: | "Andrew P. Lentvorski | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | Brian Jackson <iggy@g.o> | ||
| Cc: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Brainstorming how to collaboratively work on kernels | ||
| Date: | Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:23:49 | ||
| Message-Id: | 20040125042524.D11615@mail.allcaps.org | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Brainstorming how to collaboratively work on kernels by Brian Jackson |
||
| 1 | On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Brian Jackson wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > We can't really subject cvs.gentoo.org to the kind of abuse that 5 kernel |
| 4 | > trees would introduce. Subversion isn't an option (and I'd assume that arch, |
| 5 | > and others isn't either). |
| 6 | |
| 7 | Once you decide to dump CVS, backward compability and user familiarity are |
| 8 | removed as relevant problems. What are the other obstacles to using |
| 9 | Subversion or arch? |
| 10 | |
| 11 | At the very least, consider Perforce before Bitkeeper. Several of the |
| 12 | FreeBSD developers seem to use Perforce behind the scenes, and it hasn't |
| 13 | seemed to provoke even a fraction of the animosity that Bitkeeper does. |
| 14 | |
| 15 | -a |
| 16 | |
| 17 | -- |
| 18 | gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Brainstorming how to collaboratively work on kernels | Matthew Kennedy <mkennedy@g.o> |
| [gentoo-dev] Issues with using Subversion or arch for kernel development | "Andrew P. Lentvorski |
| Re: [gentoo-dev] Brainstorming how to collaboratively work on kernels | Grant Goodyear <g2boojum@g.o> |