[ stuff commented with : is mine btw.]
> : Any CVS guru's out there want to set up a test-system like this that
could
> : be demo'ed to Linus? Reading the CVS FAQ implies that restricted access to
> : the tree might not be altogether trivial to set up. Perhaps 2.1
> : development could be done on CVS if a convincing enough demo can be given
>
> I could set it up, but I don't think that would be wise. Since Linus
> is in control of the Linux Kernel, it is up to him to use the tools
> that would make it easy for him to use. I think someone in the
> location where Linus lives would be best for this, however, so that
> Linus can ask him/her over a beer "Well, I was using CVS today and..."
> Some version control should likely be used, but I'm not going to stand
> up and say "Linus, use XXX." It is up to Linus at this point.
Certainly. I didn't want to imply that we should (or could) force Linus to
do anything. Anyway, Linus's original thoughts on the topic are tagged on
down below for those of you who missed it the first time (1.3.45 era).
> I think that if the goal is to show Linus that CVS is a good thing,
This pretty much sums up my aim for the demo. What we need is to be able
to respond effectively to the issues Linus raised originally which no-one
did at the time ... a good multi branch access controlled CVS setup should
address the issues. (the 'mail' is a cut and paste from a web site
somewhere btw.)
--Craig
Re: CVS (was Linux 1.3.45 change log)
Linus Torvalds (Linus.Torvalds@cs.Helsinki.FI)
Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:43:08 +0200
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Andrew Mileski: "Plug-and-Play"
Previous message: Mathew G. Monroe: "Strange bug in 1.3.44"
Maybe in reply to: Lauri Tischler: "CVS (was Linux 1.3.45 change
log)"
Next in thread: Russell Nelson: "Re: CVS (was Linux 1.3.45 change
log)"
Reply: Russell Nelson: "Re: CVS (was Linux 1.3.45 change log)"
Reply: Cees de Groot: "Re: CVS (was Linux 1.3.45 change log)"
"David S. Miller": "Re: CVS (was Linux 1.3.45 change log)" (Dec 4, 19:32):
>
> Linux kernel: Linus could allow developers direct access to the
> repository, so that they could just do a `cvs update' to bring their
> trees up to date, `cvs commit' to commit their changes, etc. Linus
> would still have control over patches that didn't come from "official"
> developers. It would also help developers keep the change logs up to
> date.
I'd be more than happy to make some easy change logging facility
available, but I'm afraid that I don't like the idea of having
developers do their own updates in my kernel source tree.
I know that's how others do it, and maybe I'm paranoid, but there really
aren't that many people that I trust enough to give write permissions to
the kernel tree.. Even people I have worked with for a long time I want
to have the option of looking through their patches _first_, and maybe
commenting on them (and I do reject patches from people).
Also, the fact that all the patches go through me also means that I
generally have a reasonably good idea on what people are working on, so
when problems crop up, I also have a chance in hell of getting them
fixed. Or I can decide (unilaterally) to revert a patch that results in
problems.
> (as a side not I *know* that Linus is too lazy to place his tree under
> cvs and have to do checkins/commits what have you)
For once, Linus being lazy is actually only a secondary concern..
Linus