[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: BitBucket: GPL-ed *notrademarkhere* clone
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> My counter-question is, why not improve an _existing_ open source SCM
>> to read and write BitKeeper files? Why do we need yet another brand
>> new project?
> I don't disagree with that. However, the question you posited was
> "would one be useful", and I think the answer is unequivocally yes.

Ok, I'll grant that. :)

I think a BK clone is detrimental to the overall open source SCM world,
is my main point. I was thinking more along the lines of "useful to
'the cause'" ;-)

> Furthermore, I don't agree with the "compatibility == bad" assumption I
> read into your message.

Well, I disagree with that assumption too :) My main objection is that
a BK clone would divert attention from another effort (such as OpenCM),
with the end result that neither the BK clone nor OpenCM are as good (or
better) than BitKeeper.

>> AFAICS, a BK clone would just further divide resources and mindshare.
>> I personally _want_ an open source SCM that is as good as, or better,
>> than BitKeeper. The open source world needs that, and BitKeeper needs
>> the competition. A BK clone may work with BitKeeper files, but I
>> don't see it ever being as good as BK, because it will always be
>> playing catch-up.
> Yes. Personally, I've spent quite a bit of time with OpenCM after a
> suggestion from Ted T'so. It's looking quite promising to me, although
> I haven't yet used it to maintain a large project.

Interesting... Here's the link, in case others want to check it out:

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 13:33    [W:0.208 / U:3.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site