[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:51, you wrote:
> The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> developers.

On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into
two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".

> Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work faster
> but that is not at issue here...

Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain
is proprietary?

Heck, it's not even that proprietary. As far as I know I can still download
the source. But... looking at those files sitting in the Documentation
directory, it looks to me like a big old Marlbourough[TM] ad.

> I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that.
> Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a
> much easier life...

And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.

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 13:22    [W:0.246 / U:3.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site