[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System
> that bitkeeper has.  The problem with bitkeeper is that it's **so**
> different from CVS that it takes time to learn --- I spent a day getting
> my head wrapped around it, and I still wouldn't call myself an expert;

Another problem is that bitkeeper has not been through a security audit.

> have no problem with the license. But if there are enough other people
> who are license fanatics who do have a problem with it, then bitkeeper
> loses a lot of value for me. If Linus were willing to dictate from high
> that we were going to use bitkeeper, and that all patches had to come in

If Linus requires bitkeeper only then there will be two kernel trees. Linux
ceases to be free software when you require nonfree software to contribute it.

Note: I think the BK license is fair, I understand Larry's problem and I support
his right to use whatever license he likes. I also happen to support my right
to decline to use his software

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.657 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog