|
From: | Tony Hoyle |
Subject: | Re: [Cvsnt] Re: Latest core CVS source |
Date: | Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:17:54 +0100 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-ac26 i686; en-US; 0.8.1) Gecko/20010326 |
Terris wrote:
This is a good example of why Microsoft has nothing to fear from open source.
I wouldn't use cvs as an example... it's in the same state gcc was in before it forked and became egcs (which has since become the official release again).
If you look at stuff like the linux kernel, or XFree86, their development moves quite quickly. Stuff is tried, either works or doesn't work, then moves on.
Even cvsnt moves quicker. If someone sends me a patch I look at it - 90% of them are 'obviously correct', a few need some clarification. I'll then put the patch in with a 'try this it's new and might not work properly' warning... if nobody complains it stays in.
I've only really broken the tree once that I can remember, and that version never got released. cvsnt would be much worse off if I hadn't applied, for example, the diff patches (which reduced the number of false conflicts to almost zero).
Of course, to be fair, something like this would never happen with the Perl tree.
A good example... The new perl 6 stuff looks interesting. Tony -- Don't click on this sig - a cyberwoozle will eat your underwear. address@hidden http://www.nothing-on.tv
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |