On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 05:41:34PM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 05:53:38PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 05:53:41PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > [...] > > > > > svk may be different, if so, > > > > > this is a excellent time to discuss that. > > > > > > > > It just gets crazy if it can't find merge points. > > > > > > Could you elaborate a little. I think you are the only one using > > > svk at this point. So perhaps you are seeing problems that aren't > > > apparent when svn is used. > > > > > > When you say merge point? Does svk dictate that your head is > > > in trunk/ and directories in branch/ are siblings of it? > > > Or is it just a matter of knowing where each tree is in > > > the overall hierachy. > > > > > > > If we're going to start catering towards people using the kernel > > repository with distribution revision control tools, why not just > > use a proper distributed revision control system? I'm quite tired > > of dealing w/ SVN; I consider all these discussions about branches, > > naming, etc to be a complete waste of time brought about by SVN's > > utterly stupid (lack of) branching and naming policy. When doing > > offline development, I've tended to work using bazaar; online > > development usually consists of me flooding #debian-kernel with minor > > little commits, as well as dealing w/ conflicts as people write > > changelog entries at the same time I do. It feels a whole lot like > > SVN wastes a lot more time than it saves. > > > > I can deal w/ SVN for the immediate future, but if people start using > > svk anyways, I suggest we simply switch to something like git(/cogito) > > or bzr. > > Bastian seems to have gone ahead and rearanged SVN to his own liking, > so I'll close the book on trying to discuss that out on this list. > > I like your idea of using bzr, for starters, it has > branching and merging. For seconds, people can do > this however they please, so we don't need these tedious > debates. And there are all sorts of other good things, > like with ubuntu, which might well make things like > security patches less of a burden. > > Questions > > 1. How, if at all, do you interface baz/bzr with svn. > Is it just a manual process? > > 2. Who doesn't want to use baz/bzr instead of svn.
Just a quick question, as i am not familiar with either revision control system, but wouldn't it make more sense to use git, seeing as the kernel is using it, and we could then even handle our own whole kernel tree in it, tracking upstream or whatever. Not sure about the difference between them though, and if this makes sense or not, but as far as learning yet-another-versioning-system, i guess it is easier to learn the one used by upstream kernel developers. And is baz/bzr different or mostly the same as uncomprehensible arch/tla ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
