On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:03 PM, George Kraft wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 10:02 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> I think CVS provides a barrier of entry for people that GIT reduces.
>> For example its a PITA for me to create diffs w/CVS because the speed
>> of CVS to the sf.net server is horrendous fo
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 10:02 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I think CVS provides a barrier of entry for people that GIT reduces.
> For example its a PITA for me to create diffs w/CVS because the speed
> of CVS to the sf.net server is horrendous for me.
Kumar,
Then you don't really have an issue with
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:02:08 -0600 Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:55 AM, George Kraft wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:13 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> I'd ask again about moving to git.
> >
> > Kumar,
> >
> > With the volume activity on LTP, then I think CVS is fine and GIT is
So I brought this issue up in the past. And want to comment on it a
bit further.
1. If you haven't watch the talk Linus gave @ google related to git I
highly recommend watching it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8
2. I'm mainly a kernel developer and I agree there is some learning
c
On Nov 30, 2007, at 9:55 AM, George Kraft wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:13 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> I'd ask again about moving to git.
>
> Kumar,
>
> With the volume activity on LTP, then I think CVS is fine and GIT is
> overkill. kernel.org has a different requirements for developing/
>
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 17:13 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I'd ask again about moving to git.
Kumar,
With the volume activity on LTP, then I think CVS is fine and GIT is
overkill. kernel.org has a different requirements for developing/using
GIT.
--
George (gk4)
-
The same has been applied though the patch was a malformed patch. Still
no problem in applying it manually given itś size :-)
--Subrata--
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:00 +0530, Poornima Nayak wrote:
> Thanks for the info I will follow hanceforth.
>
>
>
