[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?
From: |
Adam Spiers |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml? |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:23:06 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
Pau Aliagas (address@hidden) wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:56:52 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Pau Aliagas <address@hidden>
> To: lkml <address@hidden>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: log-buf-len dynamic
>
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Use CVS and be happy. But don't complain to others that have needs that
> > CVS simply can't fill.
> > ....
> > Indeed. That's pretty much all non-distributed stuff is useful for, from
> > where I'm stading. Small projects with a few developers and a lot of
> > read-only stuff. And even there the developers will bitch about the
> > limitations.
> >
> > Sure, SVN makes branches cheaper, but you still have to work with them
> > like under CVS, ie merging is a total disaster. And you still can't make
> > it your private repository.
>
> No flame wars intended, but arch does this and more. See:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch
>
> Distributed, complex merging, easy branches... and even a linux repository
> from 0.1, not yet in the detail of the current cvs or bk, but easyly
> achievable if anyone is interested in spending the time to import it.
Thank you Pau for helping promote awareness of arch on lkml. I find
it amazing that I am *still* seeing quotes like this (seen in the
latest news item on kerneltrap.org, from earlier on in the same thread
which Pau replied to):
From: Linus Torvalds
To: Andrea Arcangeli
Subject: Re: log-buf-len dynamic
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> if Marcelo would be using open source code to exports the
> patchsets in his tree, we could fix it to add the email address
> along the name in the checkin logs metadata, to avoid this sort
> of mistakes.
Andrea - please just shut up.
Until you can point to anything even _remotely_ as good as
BitKeeper, there's no point in just continually trying to start a
flame-war.
How is it that such brilliantly clever guys such as Linus and Andrea
seem *so* slow on the uptake when it comes to arch? What am I
missing? It's not as if arch hasn't been mentioned many many times on
lkml already ...
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: log-buf-len dynamic (fwd), Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?,
Adam Spiers <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Momchil Velikov, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25