Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 02 Mar 2003 12:12:58 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |