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
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> - If bitkeeper makes non-bitkeeper developers less effective than
> they traditionally have been then Larry gets to fix that.

Since bitkeeper makes it easier for Linus to merge code
and the speed at which Linus is merging code seems to
have gone up, I'd say that bitkeeper has made life easier
even for those developers that aren't using it.

> - If non-bitkeeper users want *additional* functionality over what
> has traditionally been available then they get to implement it.
>
> And Linus will keep pushing prepatches in the time-honoured
> manner, so there's no loss in non-bk users effectiveness.

Indeed.


> That being said, the adoption of bitkeeper does reduce the
> chances of non-bitkeeper users from ever getting more features,
> but realistically, that would never have happened anyway.

Actually, I like to think bitkeeper has given all of the
free software version control people a nice challenge.

Raising the bar by providing better software quality is
never a bad thing, IMHO.

regards,

Rik
--
<insert bitkeeper endorsement here>

http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/

-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans