>From: "Reed F. M." <rfm@...>

...

>that there is NO one source control system for the linux kernel. Some
>people keep their trees in source control, but development is done by
>sending patches to the mailing list. It works pretty darn well. Not

...

NOTE: When I say CVS I mean CVS and comparable solutions...

Touching on this some gave me an idea about some of the other issues being
discussed.

Would it be possible for newCo to use three basic levels here?

1) The core engine team could continue using the Marion source control
system.
2) The serious developers at large would be setup to operated through the
CVS interface.
3) The not so serious could simply use email, word of mouth, etc.

The hard part would be getting the interface between Marion and CVS all
setup and working without kinks. It would probably be a manual effort
getting started. But, using CVS to distill and organize the efforts of the
masses could prove invaluable while maintaining the proven and custom
approach of Marion to oversee the internal developer tree. Seems like it
could be a reasonable compromise to me...

My gut feel here is that Marion is well suited for a tight-knit engineering
group to work with a large base of code. It probably has a lot of built-in
mechanisms that cater to the development of InterBase. What it apparently
doesn't do well is interface to the masses. Since it doesn't allow anything
more than exclusive locks on files and because it won't merge them
automatically.

One thing that I totally agree on is that the tools on the client side that
are going to be open sourced should be directly administered in the CVS
system.

Sorry if it seems I'm speaking without much knowledge of both CVS and Marion
because frankly I don't! ;-)

FWIW,
Jason Wharton
InterBase Developer Initiative
jwharton@...

InterBase will be the database of the new millennium.