Jeffrey C. Ollie <jeff <at> ocjtech.us> writes: > What this > discussion has been about is bringing patch development out of a hidden > corner the package maintainer's laptop hard drive and into a centrally > maintained, publicly available version control repository. I thought that all patches already existed in CVS. What's hidden? > Apparently you have never used a version control system that properly > supports branching and merging. CVS and Subversion do not count. Git, > Mercurial, and Bazaar are ones that do and make it easy (in some cases > trivial) to maintain code/patches in branches and then rebase the > patches to new versions of the upstream code as they are released. With > the proper discipline, keeping track of the changes that we have made to > the pristine code isn't really a problem. You are right, I didn't. I saw Linus talk about git and I kind of get the bit about identifying what's what, but I'm still not sure how such a system knows how to redo the patch so it applies to a completely new version of the software. But maybe it does - I never used it, so I really don't know. > However, I don't want this thread to descend into a debate about the > best revision control system. We need to be discussing things at a > higher level right now. No, that's OK. I think Fedora should switch version control software anyway. CVS most definitely had its day. -- Bojan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
