![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 25 Sep 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > However, that only explains why you don't use BitKeeper. And everybody > > accepts that. When I started to use BK, I made it _very_ clear that > > service for non-BK users will be _at_least_ as good as it ever was before > > I started using BK. > > And for the core kernel development this is true. There are subprojects > that are currently using BK that you can't even get the code without > BK. And the only reason they are using BK is they are attempting to > following how Linux is managed. So having the Linux kernel > development use BK does have some down sides. That's actually a pretty good point. I end up releasing "sparse" only as a BK archive, simply because I'm too lazy to care and there aren't enough people involved (and those that _are_ involved do actually end up re-exporting it as non-BK, but that doesn't invalidate your point). I don't know what the solution to it might be - but I don't think the reason they are using BK is that they are trying to emulate "the great kernel project". I know it wasn't for me - it's just that once you get used to BK, there's no way you'll ever go back to CVS willingly. > In addition there are some major gains to be had in standardizing on a > distributed version control system that everyone can use, and > unfortunately BK does not fill that position. I don't disagree, but I don't see a real way to solve it. As Larry will tell you, the technical problems are bigger than you imagine. So a BK killer won't be coming any time soon, methinks. 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||