On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 12:12:58PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> My counter-question is, why not improve an _existing_ open source SCM to
> read and write BitKeeper files? Why do we need yet another brand new
> project?
Normally, I'd agree with you Jeff. However, none of the current
open source SCM systems are architected in a way that can operate like
BK.
I've been using subversion for a while now. It pretty much
fixes all the problems that CVS had, AS LONG AS you accept the CVS style
of version control. That style doesn't work for non-central work like
the kernel.
The one thing BK does that makes it worthwhile is the three-way
merge. This (and the resulting DAG) make handling code from Alan, from
Linus, from Andrew, and from everyone else possible. With CVS,
subversion, or any other SCM I've worked with, you have to hand merge
anything past the first patch. Ugh.
This requires architecture, and (AFAIK) BitBucket is the first
try at it. Compatibility with the proprietary tool that does it already
is a good thing.
Joel
--"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee." - F. Lee Bailey
Joel Becker Senior Member of Technical Staff Oracle Corporation E-mail: joel.becker@oracle.com Phone: (650) 506-8127 - 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 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:23 EST