Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 07 Mar 2002 13:23:35 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers |
| |
Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 11:54:43AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > > > > > I'd really like everyone that's bitching about BK to shut the hell up and > > > go work on some scripts to allow a maintainer to easily manage a > > > BK<->$OTHER_SCM gateway. > > > > ie: "We broke it. You fix it". > > > > It's not reasonable to expect people who shall not be using bitkeeper > > to go off and perform enhancements to bitkeeper so that they can > > continue to be effective kernel developers. > > No. Try: > "You're whining, here's how fix it, because I don't have time or > motivation"
Let's be clearer:
- If bitkeeper makes non-bitkeeper developers less effective than they traditionally have been then Larry gets to fix that.
- If non-bitkeeper users want *additional* functionality over what has traditionally been available then they get to implement it.
And Linus will keep pushing prepatches in the time-honoured manner, so there's no loss in non-bk users effectiveness.
> Larry went to a lot of trouble to listen to what kernel developers > wanted, and a lot of work to implement some of it. I expect same courtesy > of everyone who is complaining.
I don't think anyone has been criticising bk featureset or reliability. A few performance mumblings, maybe. It seems to be a fantastic piece of software.
But that's not the point! Nobody, repeat nobody is happy with the licensing thing. For some people, the day-to-day benefits outweigh the philosophical concerns. For others they do not. That is what is being discussed here.
I see two things being discussed here:
1: I don't want bitkeeper use to *decrease* my ability to do Linux work. Linus will continue to push patches at the same rate, so I have no problem. I'm OK with others using bitkeeper. EOT.
2: Kernel has a leading role in free software development. Other people do not want kernel's use of bitkeeper to weaken that movement.
Me, I don't think the "movement" is weak enough for damage to come about. And SCM is a space where the free tools are weak. It's a once-off special-case and it's hard to see how anything bad will come about from it.
> If Larry can make good on his 'threat' to write a read-only cvs pserver > interface to BK, I think he's done his part. (BK -> $OTHER_SCM)
Well that would be icing on the cake. But I don't believe it's reasonable to expect bitmover to provide non-bitkeeper users with *more* stuff than they have traditionally had.
That being said, the adoption of bitkeeper does reduce the chances of non-bitkeeper users from ever getting more features, but realistically, that would never have happened anyway.
And the non-bitkeeper users *do* have more than they used to have - the web logs and changelogs. That's nice. It'd be nicer if the web interface was more up-to-date, but I am told that's a person thing, not a tool thing.
- - 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/
| |