[Asterisk-Dev] benevolent dictatorship, or inclusive developper community?

C. Maj cmaj at freedomcorpse.info
Thu Jan 8 11:23:14 MST 2004

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Steven Critchfield waxed:

> On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:32, C. Maj wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Chris Albertson waxed:
> > 
> > > (see update command in cvs manpage). So, yes you could have
> > > multiple lines of developmentand merge them back into a main line. 
> > 
> > Yeah and live in a nightmare.  The kernel only uses CVS as a
> > daily (or whatever) dump of what's in BitKeeper.  People
> > submit patches against CVS, sure, but the "branching" is
> > done with BK repositories.
> > 
> >     http://www.bitkeeper.com/
> Well without dredging up the BK vs. every other revision control
> software flame war, lets just point out that that wouldn't be a viable
> option here. 

Point being the kernel doesn't use CVS, so it's apples and
oranges.  You seemed to imply previously in this thread that
the kernel worked like that and this is how branches or
"mini forks" are created, through CVS.  My apologies if that
was a glib interpretation of your comments.  I'm just trying
to determine whether it is your lack of knowledge about BK
that would lead you to suggest that it's not a viable option
or something else.  Could you please explain ?

> I would suggest subversion, but it is easier to stick with what more
> people know at this moment and not force anyone to deal with the
> conversion of the tree one more time.

They don't have to.  Only the developers who want to keep
their own branches would.  Their bleeding stuff could be
pushed back into Digium's repository, for example, and
run BK2CVS on it there for the masses.



Chris Maj <cmaj_hat_freedomcorpse_hot_info>
Pronunciation Guide:  Maj == May
Fingerprint: 43D6 799C F6CF F920 6623  DC85 C8A3 CFFE F0DE C146

More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list