From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:51:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:51:39 -0500 Received: from [195.39.17.254] ([195.39.17.254]:11012 "EHLO Elf.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:50:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:23:11 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Linus Torvalds Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone Message-ID: <20030312232311.GC5958@zaurus.ucw.cz> References: <200303020011.QAA13450@adam.yggdrasil.com> <20030307123237.GG18420@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20030307165413.GA78966@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20030307190848.GB21023@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > >So, basically, if branch was killed and recreated after each merge > >from mainline, problem would be solved, right? > > Wrong. > > Now think three trees. Each merging back and forth between each other. > Or, in the case of something like the Linux kernel tree, where you don't > have two or three trees. You've got at least 20 actively developed > concurrent trees with branches at different points. Yep, but only three trees are interesting for me (your's and Andi's) and most developers only care about your tree, so simplifications should be possible. > Trust me. CVS simple CANNOT do this. You need the full information. > > Give it up. BitKeeper is simply superior to CVS/SVN, and will stay that > way indefinitely since most people don't seem to even understand _why_ > it is superior. Actually by now I understand that prcs, not cvs is the closest thing... Actually its .prj file looks similar to bk's ChangeSet file. Pavel -- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...