Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Apr 2002 12:59:17 -0600 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: 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: http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-20 http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-21
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca - 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/
| |