| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] bitkeeper gone in 2 weeks - which RCS?
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, aq wrote:
> anyway we must choose one. i vote for svn (do we usually fork the
> repo? i guess not).
We fork all the time. It's a common way of doing development
with a distributed revision control system - people check out
the upstream sources, branch them locally and still have all
the benefits of revision control when it's time to merge new
upstream changes into their local repository.
The reason there's no forking in the central repositories is
that it's not needed with distributed revision control systems.
> mercurial is the second choice to me.
Any of the distributed systems would work fine.
Central revision control would be next to useless.
--
The Theory of Escalating Commitment: "The cost of continuing mistakes is
borne by others, while the cost of admitting mistakes is borne by yourself."
-- Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economics
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home