So will bitkeeper provide a nice interface for migrating code from an
existing and well-established CVS repository to whatever they use?

I'm quite happy to allow them to test bitkeeper in a production
environment before using it in one myself, needless to say. :)

On Sat, 1 May 1999, Matthew Jacob wrote:

> 
> > 
> > # 
> > #:BitKeeper should be ready soon.
> > #:
> > #:Once it's been proven stable, might it be a better alternative to CVS?
> > #:
> > #:H
> > # 
> > #     Maybe, but we wouldn't know for a couple of years.  You don't just go
> > #     trusting 15+ years worth of source history to a program that has just
> > #     barely been written.  I think the Linux people are making a huge 
> > mistake
> > #     by not using CVS.
> > 
> > >From what I gather (and I could very well be wrong), but I
> > think BitKeeper is somewhat based on SCCS.  I'm not advocating
> > that we ditch CVS either, just that BitKeeper may not be as new
> > and fresh as some would like us to believe.  Looks like an old
> > friend (or nemisis) dressed in a new set of rags. :)
> 
> No, not really. Larry's hostile to RCS because of it's lack of checksum.
> I've asked him about it a couple of times and he's not really excited
> about an RCS bottom end. It could be done if you insisted on it (I mean,
> it's GPL'd code, right?) but it's not something he would support.
> 
> Bitkeeper is a substantial improvement over CVS and Perforce. It's really
> a nice piece of work done by somebody who *really* knows his stuff.
> Remember that Larry saved Sun from complete disaster by inventing NSElite
> (which Bitkeeper is emphatically a granchild of) in time to keep 1000
> engineers from rising up and tearing Eric Schmidt to threads over his
> insistence that "The Sun/SVR4 merge *SHALL* use NSE and the [ broken ]
> translucent filesystem if we're here until the year 2000 doing it!".
> 
> Personally, I'm happy with CVS if you have a model a single main stream of
> development. It's a disaster when you have to maintain separate
> development clusters. And very few other packages really do any kind of 
> job of this either.
> 
> Look- if Linux adopts Bitkeeper, you really should pay attention to that.
> I doubt you'd find a more difficult set of software engineers to keep code
> in sync for than the Linux folks- if Bitkeeper works for them and
> essentially makes a rational release train for Linux, then a major
> glaring flaw in Linux' strategy that keeps serious businesses from really
> being able to trust it will be removed. Think about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
> 


  Robert N Watson 

rob...@fledge.watson.org              http://www.watson.org/~robert/
PGP key fingerprint: AF B5 5F FF A6 4A 79 37  ED 5F 55 E9 58 04 6A B1

Carnegie Mellon University            http://www.cmu.edu/
TIS Labs at Network Associates, Inc.  http://www.tis.com/
Safeport Network Services             http://www.safeport.com/



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to