and there are plenty of people at Red Hat who work on CVS and
we haven't said a word.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven
feature-wise, no need to say it again. And again. And again. (And again)
I still don't want to use it.
I'm not sure that anyone is asking you to use it. What's wrong with the
people who want to use BK use BK and the people who want to use CVS use CVS?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:21:04PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 17:11, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 12:59:43PM +0200, Michel D?nzer wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 23:57, Jon Smirl wrote:
-- Michel Dnzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been using
comments, etc.
That approach is version control agnostic, it doesn't care where the data
is coming from, it's just a patch with some comments. Linus can check in
hundreds of these patches a day using BK, we've streamlined the process as
much as possible.
Would that work for you?
--
---
Larry
, thanks for your great work and best of luck.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
---
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
From: Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sourceforge CVS, was Re: [Dri-devel] radeon error
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Jon Smirl wrote:
Having used CVS and BitKeeper, BitKeeper is way better.
I will just add a big Amen, Brother! to that.
Thanks,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 11:43:40AM -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 07:47:11AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
...
Indeed I have. And there is a reason that we have a policy at BitMover
where formatting changes are prohibited and we make people redo their
changesets until
words, you are welcome to write a revision control system
which can look through the formatting changes and give you the semantic
knowledge that you want. We'd love to see how it is done and then do
it in BitKeeper :)
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 12:58:44PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Larry McVoy wrote:
A few comments on why I don't like this patch:
1) It's a formatting only patch. That screws over people who are using
BK for debugging, now when I double click on these changes I'll get
to your
me again that I'm wrong. If you do, bump it
up to 60K lines :)
if (!pointer) return (-EINVAL);
Short, sweet, readable, no worries.
return is not a function ;-)
See, there is that age thing again. Think V6. And it is sort of a function,
it unravels the stack frame.
--
---
Larry
A few comments on why I don't like this patch:
1) It's a formatting only patch. That screws over people who are using
BK for debugging, now when I double click on these changes I'll get
to your cleanup patch, not the patch that was the last substantive
change.
2) if
On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 03:21:04PM -0500, Eli Carter wrote:
Besides, your point is content specific. People check things other than
C code into BK.
I assume you can have content-specific validators run before a commit?
bk help triggers
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com
On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 01:53:17PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Larry McVoy wrote:
are function calls at a 10-nanosecond glance. Also, having two styles
of 'if' formatting in your example just screams inconsistent to me :)
It is inconsistent, on purpose. It's essentially like perl's
13 matches
Mail list logo
