[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [opensource] Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers
On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 08:05:05PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:

> BTW, bitkeeper doesn't solve the problems I have. Ditto for CVS. So I use
> neither. FWIW, BK is closer to what I need. If it will ever get the things
> I need right - I'll use it and damned if I'll hide that.

Preach on brother Viro. Faced with the mammoth task of somehow
syncing a 6MB diff with Linus, I decided it was time to devote
an afternoon (which then turned into an evening) to seeing if
bk can make this easier.

There's nothing in bk that makes my life any more difficult, and
potential for it to make it a *lot* easier. And Larry seems
open to suggestions, dispelling the "its closed commercial blah" myth.

Splitting bits up could become even easier soon if Larry and I figure
out a way to implement some of my perverse ideas for bending csets
into something more flexable than what they currently are.

Syncing from Linus to my tree isn't difficult, its the splitting bits
up to push his way that takes time. bk is halfway towards almost
automating this for me. CVS and friends don't even get to the
start line here.

Hours of diff/grepdiff/filterdiff/vim, vs a few clicky clicky bits
in bk citool.

If you don't like the license, fine. Don't use it, but at least
give everyone else the option of making up their own mind before
you try to force _your_ opinion on others.

| Dave Jones.
| SuSE Labs
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:21    [W:0.177 / U:2.996 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site