Re: The Trolling on the freebsd- lists

[Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@xxxxxx>]

-On [20040106 21:12], Gary Thorpe (gathorpe79@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>I would think that since CVS was designed with this in mind (branches, 
>alternate threads of parallel development) that it would be a natural 
>outcome. Since work on branches will never directly affect each other, I 
>don't see why the main branch could not hold the 'important' code and 
>yet keep experimental branches around to try new ideas. As far as I 
>know, this sort of thing only happens normally for the Linux kernel 
>(which paradoxically, did not use version management in any form until 
>the last few years): none of the BSD's do this (yet). Am I mistaken in 
>this general observation? Why has it happened this way for Linux/BSD? 

Usage of branches within CVS isn't quite as simple as it should be.
They're quite 'expensive' to use.  Systems such as subversion make it a
snap to use them.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://diary.in-nomine.org/
Take thy beak from out my heart and take thy form from off my door!