Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrew Walrond <> | Subject | Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air | Date | Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:26:13 +0000 |
| |
On Wednesday 19 Nov 2003 12:38 am, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Presumably because he's said several times that the bk2cvs gateway > software is based on (and requires) the commercial version of bk. Not > to mention that the way it generates repositories isn't really > compatible with this model.
I was (obviously?) assuming that the bk(d) was the commercial version, but I don't see how that would affect the client from being o/s?
And why is this different from bk2cvs? Because then I have to rsync the cvs repo with all the problems (discussed at length in this thread) of getting a coherent local copy of the repo.
I guess it all comes back to my wanting to host my (commercial and open- source) public code repositories with bk, but have to guarantee 100% access to my 'users'. 99% Isn't good enough.
I'm not, Daniel, a FSF/GPL whiner, and do not appreciate being labelled as such.
Andrew Walrond
- 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/
| |