On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 07:19:53PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote: > * Crispin Cowan <crispinat_private> [010422 19:13]: > > What kind of source control do folks think is appropriate? Tar balls? CVS? > > We've been playing with Bitkeeper lately, and kinda like it. > > I vote for BitKeeper. :) I don't want to get on a source control system thread here (nor do I want to argue if BitKeeper is "free" or not), but BitKeeper does have some notable advantages over cvs in dealing with large trees like the linux kernel has. It has made my life _much_ easier, and I have tried to maintain kernel trees in both cvs and bitkeeper, so I am comparing apples to apples. It's what we are using in house for free software development, and it looks to be the tool that the kernel developers are agreeing to use for 2.5 (numerous branches of the kernel currently use it today, notably the PPC group.) If nothing else, give it a try at: http://www.bitkeeper.com/ I'll work on setting up anonymous access to our tree today also. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ linux-security-module mailing list linux-security-moduleat_private http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 09:54:59 PDT