[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers
Andrew Morton wrote:
> I've said about, uh, three times now that I'm not losing anything.
> Problem? Well partly I just can't be assed to use the thing because
> I'm comfortable with my own scripts and all revision control systems
> just get in your face and suck. But also because I'm here to improve
> the body of public software, and at the end of the day, any support
> which I put into bitkeeper won't help there. (using == supporting).

FWIW, I've "gotten" your problem with BitKeeper for a while now...

..And I'm glad you're speaking out and holding the torch here. We need
dissenters to keep us BK users honest :)

[i.e. the same reason that, while I might not agree with RMS, I think
the Linux community and free software in general need him to be around.
We need activists willing to hold the hard line.]

Jeff Garzik | Usenet Rule #2 (John Gilmore): "The Net interprets
Building 1024 | censorship as damage and routes around it."
MandrakeSoft |
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:0.174 / U:4.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site