Messages in this thread | | | Subject | [offtopic] BitKeeper & distributions, please read | From | (Larry McVoy) | Date | Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:21:55 -0600 |
| |
We've been discussing licensing terms for bitkeeper and there is some hope that following the ghostscript model would be acceptable. I'd like to get it resolved to people's satisfaction because there is something else I'd like to do with BitKeeper.
Suppose I could get the RedHat and SUSE (and Caldera too) to do the following:
- ship their editors with BitSCCS linked in (editors includes stuff like linuxconf for purposes of this discussion) - make all the system config files revision controlled (behind your back so you didn't see any difference) - have a mode where all files added to a directory were revision controlled (/var/lib/majodomo/lists for example).
Given the way that BitKeeper works, you could now ship around "patches" which describe a particular configuration, like a "web serving, masquerading, firewall". The patches could be relative to RedHat-5.1 or SUSE-8.3.
I personnally would love this feature. The way I work is to hack on the configuration over a period of days or even weeks. Eventually I get it to work and I have no idea what I've done. And no easy way to figure it out. This would solve that problem in a way that would be useful for other people. I'd like to be able to go search on "web serving masquerading firewall config patch" and just find the patch I needed for my system.
RedHat won't do it unless BitSCCS is free, so if I released an older version that was GPLed, that might solve the problem.
Thoughts?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |