Re: GNU Mach source code (was: SiS900)
However, later it must still be obvious to figure out easily if a
committed change is an update from Linux-2.0.x, a backport from
e.g. Linux-2.2.x, or a Mach-specific change. The ChangeLog is not
always explicit there, at least IMHO.
Then I think we should take care to make them clearer when it comes to
such things instead of jumping through loops on fire.
> If we follow the "rule" that you note we will have lots of moving
> files back and forth for no apparant reason, and thus making
> things impossible to follow. Imaging the following scenario
That would be less of a problem, if the revision control system
supported file renames, etc., which the currently used one doesn't.
Hopefully, in a not so distant future, Savannah will support GNU arch
as a RCS. Then this can be used instead. But it would still be
messy, I wasn't refering to the problems with CVS...