> >So, basically, if branch was killed and recreated after each merge
> >from mainline, problem would be solved, right?
>
> Wrong.
>
> Now think three trees. Each merging back and forth between each other.
> Or, in the case of something like the Linux kernel tree, where you don't
> have two or three trees. You've got at least 20 actively developed
> concurrent trees with branches at different points.
Yep, but only three trees are interesting
for me (your's and Andi's) and most
developers only care about your tree,
so simplifications should be possible.
> Trust me. CVS simple CANNOT do this. You need the full information.
>
> Give it up. BitKeeper is simply superior to CVS/SVN, and will stay that
> way indefinitely since most people don't seem to even understand _why_
> it is superior.
Actually by now I understand that prcs,
not cvs is the closest thing... Actually
its .prj file looks similar to bk's ChangeSet
file.
Pavel
-- Pavel Written on sharp zaurus, because my Velo1 broke. If you have Velo you don't need...- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/