On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > Give it up. BitKeeper is simply superior to CVS/SVN, and will stay that
> > > way indefinitely since most people don't seem to even understand _why_
> > > it is superior.
> >
> > You make it sound like no one is even interested ;-). But it's not true! A
> > lot of people currently working on alternative version control systems would
> > like very much to know what it would take to satisfy the needs of kernel
> > development. Maybe, being on the inside of the process and well aware of
> > your own needs, you don't realize how difficult it is to figure these things
> > out from the outside. I think only very few people (perhaps only one) really
> > understand this issue, and they aren't communicating with the horde of people
> > who really want to help, if only they knew how.
>
> [Long rant, summary: it's harder than you think, read on for the details]
>
> There are parts of BitKeeper which required multiple years of thought by
> people a lot smarter than me. You guys are under the mistaken impression
> that BitKeeper is my doing; it's not. There are a lot of people who
> work here and they have some amazing brains. To create something like
> BK is actually more difficult than creating a kernel.
Larry, how many years are that you're working as a developer and side by
side with developers ? 15 maybe 20 ? Do you know what's the best way to
keep developers out of doing something ? Well, just say the task is
trivial, easy, for dummies. And you will see developers stay away from the
project like cats from water. Try, even remotely, to dress the project
with complexity, and they'll come in storms ...
- Davide
-
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 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:16 EST