Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air | From | Sven Dowideit <> | Date | Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:53:56 +1100 |
| |
Larry,
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 05:42, Larry McVoy wrote: > It would be free as in w/ source, probably BSD rather than GPL but some > license you'd like. About the only thing we'd need to worry about is > our commercial customers taking this and using it as a way to not pay > for some seats so there is some chance that we'd want to put in some > hook there, I'd have to think about that before promising anything. to my mind this would be brilliant, but i don't remember every whinging about bk ;).
The only requirements that would need to be fulfilled for it to go into debian, would be source, a licence that does not restrict the usage of the code/ package, and a distinct lack of invariant sections in the license. (a real debian developer can probably elaborate better than i) > > I'm curious as to why you would think this is better than the CVS gateway. > The CVS gateway is actually a really nice thing. The whiners think we > have somehow hamstrung the data in the gateway but that's only because > they haven't looked at the data, if they had done a careful comparison > then they'd know it's all in there. last time i tried the cvs gateway, i think i had trouble getting a full shadow.. I should try again really, but i would hope that the openBKClient could be faster, better and more modern (oh, and sexy too)
(and would mean that you don't need the cvs gateway anymore!) > > So what's the attraction? Having a client that will work with any BK > server? Do you realize that the client is just a way to get at the head? > And tagged releases? It doesn't have 1/10th the functionality of BK itself. yep. and for me, until i do some actual kernel development (unlikely as i just can't find the time), this is all i think i want - i should be able to do a bit more testing this way.
cheers
Sven [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |