[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: BitKeeper open-sourced
Your strong reaction leads me to suspect there is a confusion of terms.
BitKeeper supports arbitrarily complicated lines of development. What
BitKeeper doesn't support is the 'git' branching model where these
different lines of development are all stored in the same directory tree
and you need to use commands to switch between the different views.
Instead in BitKeeper, the the different "tips" of the different projects
are stored in separate directories. Code can move between these
There are certainly pros and cons of this approach, but no fundamental
difference to what kind of software development processes are supported.
On 06/05/2016 04:50 PM, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
On 05.06.2016 22:09, David Holland wrote:
On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 11:23:24AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> It matches the requirements of David Holland from "preliminary version
> control requirements" , except branching -- as branches are handled
> as separate clones. According to the upstream developers it should work
> well for releng.
Really? It doesn't have branches at all?
branches-as-clones won't cut it. Even if it works for releng, which I
doubt, where do we put things like tls-maxphys?
I'm adding BK devs to CC.
Main Index |
Thread Index |