lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers
    Andrew Morton wrote:
    > I've said about, uh, three times now that I'm not losing anything.
    >
    > Problem? Well partly I just can't be assed to use the thing because
    > I'm comfortable with my own scripts and all revision control systems
    > just get in your face and suck. But also because I'm here to improve
    > the body of public software, and at the end of the day, any support
    > which I put into bitkeeper won't help there. (using == supporting).

    FWIW, I've "gotten" your problem with BitKeeper for a while now...

    ..And I'm glad you're speaking out and holding the torch here. We need
    dissenters to keep us BK users honest :)

    [i.e. the same reason that, while I might not agree with RMS, I think
    the Linux community and free software in general need him to be around.
    We need activists willing to hold the hard line.]

    --
    Jeff Garzik | Usenet Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets
    Building 1024 | censorship as damage and routes around it."
    MandrakeSoft |
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:4.175 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site