Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:39:51 -0300 (BRT) | From | Rik van Riel <> | Subject | Re: New BK License Problem? |
| |
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 4) have widely-usable CVS replacement.
Subversion is a CVS replacement already.
Why aren't you using it, Pavel ?
> > It costs a lot of money to do what we are doing, we know exactly how > > much, and a GPLed answer won't support those costs. We have to do > > what > > Even if *you* stopped developping bitkeeper, there would be plenty of > other people to develop it, into way better product. > > If you don't think GPLed bitkeeper can not be developed, then I do not > know why you are trying to kill subversion.
Pavel, I know you want to kill bitkeeper. However, whining isn't going to achieve that. Turning subversion into a better tool than bitkeeper might...
I think Ben Collins already has a script to extract changesets from the kernel tree using just CSSC as a tool. Why don't you help him get those changesets imported into Subversion ?
regards,
Rik -- Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH". http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |