Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:00:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:00:15 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:46343 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:00:08 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:59:47 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: "Jonathan A. George" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Kernel SCM: When does CVS fall down where it REALLY matters? In-Reply-To: <3C87FD12.8060800@greshamstorage.com> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org 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 On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Jonathan A. George wrote: > I am considering adding some enhancements to CVS to address deficiencies > which adversely affect my productivity. > ... I would like to know what the Bitkeeper users consider the minimum > acceptable set of improvements that CVS would require for broader > acceptance. 1) working merges 2) atomic checkins of entire patches, fast tags 3) graphical 2-way merging tool like bitkeeper has (this might not seem essential to people who have never used it, but it has saved me many many hours) 4) distributed repositories 5) ability to exchange changesets by email regards, Rik -- http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/