Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:19:40 +0200 | | From | Dave Jones <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree |
| |
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other > > developers. > On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into > two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".
Care to back that up with numbers ? Take another look at the statistics Larry posted after the 2.5.8 merge. ISTR pretty much a 50/50 split of bk merges and regular GNU patches. Whilst a large proportion of the gnu patches were from the largish sync I did, this ratio seems to be holding up over every release.
> Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what > existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain > is proprietary?
Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux. Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as it was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?
> > I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that. > > Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a > > much easier life... > And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
You've not pointed out where this difficulty is yet. Apart from developers having to wade through this same discussion every third week.
-- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - 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/
|  |