On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:16:03 -0500, Adam Majer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I would consider bitkeeper out of the question for a central
>> repository. CVS and SVN are certainly options, although I tend to
>> prefer arch. Regardless of what's chosen, I plan to still use arch
>> for my own work (taking what's in the main repository and branching
>> from it). I haven't been overly impressed with SVN's resource
>> usage; doing a debian-installer checkout drives the load on my
>> machine nuts for a bit, and is very slow.
> Ok. I think it might be a good idea to just stick with CVS
> then. After all, it is an old and trusted system used very
> successfully by other large projects, like *BSDs.
I would strongly recommend arch over CVS here. CVS is largely
broken for distributed development, and arch is far more functional.
>>
>> I wouldn't want to see a radical departure from Hurbert's current
>> kernels (structure-wise) until after sarge is released. However,
>> once that happens, I would like to see the build system simplified.
>> This ties in with the cdbs rewrite that I have plans for, including
>> making it trivial to generate -source packages with cdbs.
>>
> Right now I agree, it is rather late to change things. But we could
> at least start the preparations for Sarge+1 kernel.
Umm. Does this mean that you would step away from using
kernel-package for making kernels?
manoj
--
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if
you really make them think they'll hate you.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
