Comment Re:Inconsistent answers re: revision control? (Score 1) 287
You didn't get it.
His changes and development are on CVS, and he might want to make that public.(Q#4)
The Linux kernel is not on CVS and he's not going to put it on CVS.(Q#18)
CVS would not work for Linux (and for a lot of other projects) because with CVS you loose the semantics of a set of changes that a patch has. Imagine a patch that touches five files. If it's a patch it's one patch file that has the changes for all five source files. The entire change is contained in one place, even though it spans five source files. If you do that on CVS, when you commit the changes they turn to five individual changes to five files, and you have to hunt them down later if you want to undo them.
IIRC, that's one of the motivations behind BitKeeper and other newer version control systems.
His changes and development are on CVS, and he might want to make that public.(Q#4)
The Linux kernel is not on CVS and he's not going to put it on CVS.(Q#18)
CVS would not work for Linux (and for a lot of other projects) because with CVS you loose the semantics of a set of changes that a patch has. Imagine a patch that touches five files. If it's a patch it's one patch file that has the changes for all five source files. The entire change is contained in one place, even though it spans five source files. If you do that on CVS, when you commit the changes they turn to five individual changes to five files, and you have to hunt them down later if you want to undo them.
IIRC, that's one of the motivations behind BitKeeper and other newer version control systems.
