[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...
Larry McVoy writes:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 06:21:27PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > It's not my call to make.
> >
> > I know that. I was wondering if *you personally* would have any objection.
> Daniel, I won't be nagged into supporting your point of view, sorry.
> I didn't even know that the doc was in the tree until you raised the
> point. I don't see a problem with it being in the tree and I do *not*
> support your attempts to remove it.
> You seem to think it has some great value to BitMover to have it in
> the tree. Sorry, that's not true. It's true to some small extent, in
> that it may reduce the number of support queries that we get related to
> the kernel. So we'd prefer it stayed in the tree.
> Why don't you ask Jeff to stick in the doc saying something like
> BitKeeper is not free software. You may use it for free, subject
> to the licensing rules (bk help bkl will display them), but it is
> not open source. If you feel strongly about 100% free software
> tool chain, then don't use BitKeeper. Linus has repeatedly stated
> that he will continue to accept and produce traditional "diff -Nur"
> style patches. It is explicitly not a requirement that you use
> BitKeeper to do kernel development, people may choose whatever tool
> works best for them.

I've added two subsections to the FAQ about this, which I hope will
avoid some future flamewars:


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 13:25    [W:0.308 / U:12.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site