Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:48:58 +0200 From: Neil Blakey-Milner <nbm@mithrandr.moria.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@pobox.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Salon article on BSD Message-ID: <20000517214857.A80602@mithrandr.moria.org> In-Reply-To: <200005171835.LAA07917@usr05.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Wed, May 17, 2000 at 06:35:54PM %2B0000 References: <20000516115825.B19647@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <200005171835.LAA07917@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed 2000-05-17 (18:35), Terry Lambert wrote: > > Well, whatever suits him -- and linux has improved phenomenally in the > > last 3 years, ie since its 1.2 days, so he must be doing something > > right. One can't say what *would* have happened if he'd done things > > differently. > > If he had adopted a constraining tool like CVS, Linux would have > forked on no less than 3 (mathematically) documentable occasions. What do you mean by "constraining"? Linus's stated objection to CVS is that it leads to "oh well, put it in, if it breaks, back it out", which seems not to imply constraint. Linus's personal multi-tasking abilities (as impressive as they seem to be) are more likely to constrain development (if that's what you mean) than a CVS tree would. Or do you mean Linus's non-use of CVS has led to no forks because it's impossible to keep up with the changes and what the purposes of them are? I imagine that a CVS tree (of the Linux kernel) would help a lot in keeping concurrent development of an alternate kernel with an increased number of committers (in the alternate kernel). Neil -- Neil Blakey-Milner Sunesi Clinical Systems nbm@mithrandr.moria.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000517214857.A80602>