Udev in b6_0: to be or not to be
jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 1 23:18:10 PDT 2004
Jeremy Utley said the following on 02-06-2004 06:24:
>> Items would be pulled from that branch when appropriate and merged
>> into head, all the time keeping head relatively sane. Once all the
>> goals for the next release have been met, branch and continue on.
>> Unstable can continue on it's current branch, or refresh itself at
>> branch point...or any other time for that matter.
> Using existing tools (CVS) this is pretty difficult to do. You then end
> up with twice the commit work (once when it goes into "unstable", and
> again to move to "testing"), and you have issues of incompatibility.
> Subversion will make it a little bit easier, but it will still involve
> double-commits for the most part. Only by moving to something like
> BitKeeper can we easily pull individual pieces between trees easily, and
> the license issues make BK an unacceptable solution.
I currently have the pleasure of working with Subversion and there is
nothing in it which prevents you from working this way. For the above
model (multiple branches and substantial merging between them),
Subversion is *ideally* suited, since branching is very easy and merging
too. I don't see why there would be double commits since you can "svn
merge" from unstable to testing quite easily if both are in the same
repository, and since commits are atomic, they can easily be tracked.
There wouldn't even be a need for tagging unstable!
More information about the lfs-dev