Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:22:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:22:02 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.139]:50445 "EHLO smtpzilla3.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:21:59 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 05:32:26 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Linus Torvalds cc: Zack Brown , Larry McVoy , Subject: Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1205 Lines: 29 Hi, On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > None of these are issues for broken systems like CVS or SVN, since they > have a central repository, so there _cannot_ be multiple concurrent > renames that have to be merged much later. It is possible, you only have to remember that the file foo.c doesn't have to be called foo.c,v in the repository. SVN should be able to handle this, it's just lacking important merging mechanisms. This is actually a key feature I want to see in a SCM system - the ability to keep multiple developments within the same repository. I want to pull other source tress into a branch and compare them with other branches and merge them into new branches. > Sepoarate repostitories and SCCS file formats have nothing to do with the > real problem. Distribution is key, not the repository format. I agree, what I was trying to say is that the SCCS format makes a few things more complex than they had to be. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/