lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BitBucket: GPL-ed *notrademarkhere* clone
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <3E616224.6040003@pobox.com>
> By author: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
>>You're missing the point:
>>
>>A BK exporter is useful. A BK clone is not.
>>
>
>
> I disagree. A BK clone would almost certainly be highly useful. The
> fact that it would happen to be compatible with one particular
> proprietary tool released by one particular company doesn't change
> that fact one iota; in fact, some people might find value in using the
> proprietary tool for whatever reason (snazzy GUI, keeping the suits
> happy, who knows...)


While people would certainly use it, I can't help but think that a BK
clone would damage other open source SCM efforts. I call this the
"SourceForge Syndrome":

Q. I found a problem/bug/annoyance, how do I solve it?
A. Clearly, a brand new sourceforge project is called for.

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?

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.

Jeff



-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.326 / U:1.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site