Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 11:22:33 -0700 (PWT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BitKeeper (was Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905011111540.16544-100000@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.10.9905011257050.1796-100000@fly.HiWAAY.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > # > #:BitKeeper should be ready soon. > #: > #:Once it's been proven stable, might it be a better alternative to CVS? > #: > #:H > # > # Maybe, but we wouldn't know for a couple of years. You don't just go > # trusting 15+ years worth of source history to a program that has just > # barely been written. I think the Linux people are making a huge mistake > # by not using CVS. > > >From what I gather (and I could very well be wrong), but I > think BitKeeper is somewhat based on SCCS. I'm not advocating > that we ditch CVS either, just that BitKeeper may not be as new > and fresh as some would like us to believe. Looks like an old > friend (or nemisis) dressed in a new set of rags. :) No, not really. Larry's hostile to RCS because of it's lack of checksum. I've asked him about it a couple of times and he's not really excited about an RCS bottom end. It could be done if you insisted on it (I mean, it's GPL'd code, right?) but it's not something he would support. Bitkeeper is a substantial improvement over CVS and Perforce. It's really a nice piece of work done by somebody who *really* knows his stuff. Remember that Larry saved Sun from complete disaster by inventing NSElite (which Bitkeeper is emphatically a granchild of) in time to keep 1000 engineers from rising up and tearing Eric Schmidt to threads over his insistence that "The Sun/SVR4 merge *SHALL* use NSE and the [ broken ] translucent filesystem if we're here until the year 2000 doing it!". Personally, I'm happy with CVS if you have a model a single main stream of development. It's a disaster when you have to maintain separate development clusters. And very few other packages really do any kind of job of this either. Look- if Linux adopts Bitkeeper, you really should pay attention to that. I doubt you'd find a more difficult set of software engineers to keep code in sync for than the Linux folks- if Bitkeeper works for them and essentially makes a rational release train for Linux, then a major glaring flaw in Linux' strategy that keeps serious businesses from really being able to trust it will be removed. Think about it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9905011111540.16544-100000>