Message-ID: <3C87FD12.8060800@greshamstorage.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:51:46 -0600
From: "Jonathan A. George" <JGeorge@greshamstorage.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8+) Gecko/20020226
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Kernel SCM: When does CVS fall down where it REALLY matters?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

I am considering adding some enhancements to CVS to address deficiencies 
which adversely affect my productivity.  Since it would obviously be 
nice to have a completely free (or even GPL :-) tool which is not 
considered to consist of unacceptable compromises in the process of 
kernel development I would like to know what the Bitkeeper users 
consider the minimum acceptable set of improvements that CVS would 
require for broader acceptance.  Obviously the tremendous set of 
features that Bitkeeper has are nice, but I'd like to narrow the 
comparative flaws to a manageable set.

Any comments would benefit all of the free SCM projects by at least 
helping to provide a guiding light.

--Jonathan--

-
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/