"Danny J. Zerkel" wrote: > Maybe cvs is an academic toy. Most real development requires a real > configuration management system. Why do you think there is work being done > on FreeBSD in Perforce?
Frankly, it's because CVS only permits a single line of concurrent developement, and it's a limiting tool; but CVSup is CVS-centric and fails with P4, and P4 costs money as a barrier to adoption for FreeBSD, if the project were to cut over to it, so there's understandable backpressure against using it for the main repository. > The sooner FreeBSD and Linux can escape the clutches > of cvs, the better. Linux doesn't use CVS. It doesn't use source management software at all, right now; Linus has only recently got around to experimenting with Bitkeeper. No matter how you slice it, your tools constrain your work; FreeBSD has a two tier core/committer split, and a barrier to entry for casual patch submission because of CVS' single line of developement, and GNATS/send-pr, respectively. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
