lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.663 / U:2.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site