Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:12:37 -0800 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers |
| |
Linus Torvalds wrote: > > In article <20020306221305.GA370@elf.ucw.cz>, > Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote: > > > >So you basically give bk for free because it is good for you. What if > >it will stop being good for you ten years from now? > > Guys, calm down. > > A few points: > > - I certainly don't require BK use of anybody. It makes my life > simpler with some people (mainly the ones that tend to be maintainers > of subsystems and send me lots of patches), but there are many > developers who do NOT use BK, and it doesn't slow them down at all. > > For example, see the FS patches from Al Viro: the only thing that BK > has resulted in as far as Al is concerned is that the changelogs are > a lot better and include his email comments. > > And I also export my tree as regular patches, the way I always have > (well, the actual format changed subtly, but that's purely syntactic) > > - If Larry turns to the dark side (or, as some would say, the "even > darker side" ;) we're _still_ ok. The data isn't going anywhere, he > can't close that down. We'd just have to export it into a new format. > > If worst comes to worst, and nobody has fixed CVS/subversion/whatever > by then, I can even just go back to how I used to work. Nothing lost. > > - If people in the open-source SCM community wake up and notice that > the current open-source SCM systems aren't cutting it, that's _good_. > But it's absolutely NOT an excuse to use them today. Sorry. I use > CVS at work, and I could never use it for Linux. I took a look at > subversion, and it doesn't even come close to what I wanted. > > And I personally refuse to use inferior tools because of ideology. In > fact, I will go as far as saying that making excuses for bad tools > due to ideology is _stupid_, and people who do that think with their > gonads, not their brains.
Does this mean you will admit kgdb into the tree?
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself :-)
-g
> > In short: nobody requires BK of anybody else. A lot of people really > like using it, though, and it does make some things easier. Some people > aren't convinced - David Miller is trying it out, and I haven't heard > all happy sounds from him about it. Others have taken to BK like fish to > water, and you'll pry it out of their dead cold hands. > > The most productive thing people could do might be to just do a BK->CVS > gateway, if you really feel like it. Or just go on and ignore the fact > that some people are using BK - you don't actually have to ever even > know. > > Linus > - > 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/
-- George george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/ - 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/
| |