Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, 14 May 2004 20:16:03 -0500, Adam Majer<adamm@galacticasoftware.com> said:I would consider bitkeeper out of the question for a central repository. CVS and SVN are certainly options, although I tend to prefer arch. Regardless of what's chosen, I plan to still use arch for my own work (taking what's in the main repository and branching from it). I haven't been overly impressed with SVN's resource usage; doing a debian-installer checkout drives the load on my machine nuts for a bit, and is very slow.Ok. I think it might be a good idea to just stick with CVS then. After all, it is an old and trusted system used very successfully by other large projects, like *BSDs.I would strongly recommend arch over CVS here. CVS is largely broken for distributed development, and arch is far more functional.
I'm just looking at arch. It seems to be better than CVS - I never liked the version tracking since it was per file. :)
Thanks for the suggestion - arch seems better than CVS.
I wouldn't want to see a radical departure from Hurbert's current kernels (structure-wise) until after sarge is released. However, once that happens, I would like to see the build system simplified. This ties in with the cdbs rewrite that I have plans for, including making it trivial to generate -source packages with cdbs.Right now I agree, it is rather late to change things. But we could at least start the preparations for Sarge+1 kernel.Umm. Does this mean that you would step away from using kernel-package for making kernels?
No. I just don't like the way that we keep track of patches to the current kernel. That's all. I have *nothing* against the build system! :)
You see I want to know what patches are applied to the vanilla kernel to make the vanilla kernel a Debian kernel. Furthermore, I also want to know where these patches are from (ie. from whom) and for what purpose.
- Adam