*BSD News Article 21159


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:5190 comp.os.386bsd.misc:1049
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!koriel!sh.wide!wnoc-tyo-news!sranha!sranhd!sran230!sraNFS1!soda
From: soda@sran230.sra.CO.JP (Noriyuki Soda)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: A merge of FreeBSD and NetBSD? (Another person's opinion)
Date: 18 Sep 1993 07:07:29 GMT
Organization: Software Research Associates, Inc., Japan
Lines: 14
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <SODA.93Sep18160729@sran230.sra.CO.JP>
References: <1993Sep8.231610.9740@ccds3.ntu.edu.tw> <haley.747858702@husc8>
	<JTSILLA.93Sep12213741@damon.ccs.northeastern.edu>
	<BLYMN.93Sep17202345@mallee.awadi.com.au>
	<27cl2d$nn0@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sran230.sra.co.jp
In-reply-to: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu's message of 17 Sep 1993 15:28:13 GMT

>>>>> On 17 Sep 1993 15:28:13 GMT, nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams) said:
> Both the FreeBSD and NetBSD teams use CVS for all their source code
> control issues, and it works rather well for concurrent editing of
> files.  (Though there are still multiple developers editing one file
> issues)

Why FreeBSD and NetBSD teams doesn't use CVS branch to share one
common source repository ? I know first cvs-importing to share tree is
painfull work. But the sooner, the less pain.

IMHO, one that already has much cvs-commits must provide repository,
and one that has less cvs-commits must become branch.
--
soda@sra.co.jp	$B!!!!!!(BSRA $B%7%9%F%`3+H/#6It(B	$B!!A>EDE/G7(B (Soda Noriyuki)