> In summary, please do not advocate BitKeeper for use by the general
> community. The Linux development process seems to have worked up till
> now, and we can wait a little longer until Arch[3] or Subversion[4]
> are completed. Moreover, full-featured, completely functional free
> versioning sytems are currently available, such as PRCS[5] and CVS[6].
> We respect the kernel maintainer's freedom to use proprietary software
> for their own purposes. And we ask the kernel maintainers to respect
> the community's freedom from entrapment by proprietary software.
First, CVS is COMPLETELY inadequate for the kind of distributed,
non-centralized development that goes on for the kernel.
Bitkeeper solves some rather difficult problems that *NOTHING ELSE SOLVES*
right now. This is why I've continued to use it for the last 2 years, even
though I occasionally get annoyed that it's not free software.
Your efforts on this petition would be FAR better spent (and appreciated)
by attempting to mirror several BK kernel trees with Arch or Subversion.
You will soon find out the limitations of both, and maybe even improve
both projects to the point that they will be useable instead of bitkeeper.
Instead of whining about developers using BK, go out and give us an
alternative. Maybe then we will listen.
-- Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' | hozer@drgw.net -----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me ----- "Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Schulz - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 07 2002 - 21:00:48 EST