Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 01 May 1999 18:57:40 -0700
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
To:        mjacob@feral.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:  <21787.925610260@zippy.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 May 1999 17:45:44 PDT." <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905011733400.17071-100000@feral.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.

- Jordan


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?21787.925610260>