However, later it must still be obvious to figure out easily if a committed change is an update from Linux-2.0.x, a backport from e.g. Linux-2.2.x, or a Mach-specific change. The ChangeLog is not always explicit there, at least IMHO.
Then I think we should take care to make them clearer when it comes to such things instead of jumping through loops on fire. > If we follow the "rule" that you note we will have lots of moving > files back and forth for no apparant reason, and thus making > things impossible to follow. Imaging the following scenario > [...] That would be less of a problem, if the revision control system supported file renames, etc., which the currently used one doesn't. Hopefully, in a not so distant future, Savannah will support GNU arch as a RCS. Then this can be used instead. But it would still be messy, I wasn't refering to the problems with CVS... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
