Re: GNU Mach source code (was: SiS900)

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   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...