Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 19:08:21 -0700 (PWT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>, 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.4.04.9905011908040.735-100000@feral.com> In-Reply-To: <21787.925610260@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, I'm not philosophically opposed to a clearly superior solution, > I simply don't want to see us make any moves which involve so many > messy trade-offs that we end up wasting more time embroiled in debate > than we save with the new tool. > > My suggestion would be to wait and see how bitkeeper pans out. Enough > people in the Linux camp have already looked at CVSup and gone "ooh, > sexy!" that I think there will already be significant pressure to > develop similar tools for the bitkeeper environment. When that > happens, we can start to look at this more seriously. Well, that's fine too, then... 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.4.04.9905011908040.735-100000>