|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] subversion vs opencm?
|
Jeff Abrahamson said:
> On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 09:57:54AM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> > [32 lines, 185 words, 1089 characters] Top characters: etoasnri
> >
> > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:04:36PM -0400, Jeff Abrahamson wrote:
> > > Subversion has been getting a lot of press recently in the debian
> > > world as a CVS replacement
> >
> > But be wary of getting yelled at that BitKeeper is clearly superior
> > if you frequent lkm. ;^>
>
> But it's not free.
Well, depends on usage, at least that seems to be one of the main kernel
developer complaints. It's certainly free when I use it at home to pull
the bitkeeper tree, or generate patches against a local repository.
Personally, it seems that cvs and bitkeeper have their own advantages
and disadvantages.
I find the 'bk revtool' and 'bk citool' to be handy views into the code
repositories. However, I find that bk forces merging changes you make
locally into the history much earlier than you would have to with cvs.
I find that a negative.
They now have a cvs mirror of the bk repository, so a bunch of the
flamewars ought to be moot today.
--
Kevin Brosius
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|