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)