In article <flk.1004824861.fsf@jens.unfaehig.de> you wrote:
> What are the reasons that Linux isn't kept in an CVS repository?
Some architectures and branches are kept in Source control. Like sparc, xfs.
Also the complete kernel is available in bitkeeper. Linux does not see a
reason to have his version in the CVS. And since he is the only commiter it
is quite valid for him to choose the tool he wants to use.
> mean, it would still give Linus full control over his branch of the
> kernel, and it would make merging of Alan's branches into the main
> branch easier.
It is is not your problem to merge them. Alan and Linus are doing that. And
they are fine without CVS.
BTW: this discussion is very old, you should only start it, if you have new
facts :)
Greetings
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:22 EST