Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper
From: Tupshin Harper
Date: Sun Dec 14 2003 - 19:21:05 EST
Larry McVoy wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 03:17:04PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
I'm sure many people will find this useful. Personally (and this is not
intended as any sort of flame bait), I just want a way to get access to
all raw bk changesets for a given project.
I'm sure you do, I've read your postings on various SCM mailing lists.
You'll have to get your test data elsewhere, sorry, we're not in the
business of helping you develop a competing product. Using BK to do
that is a violation of the free use license and I'm sure you are aware
of that.
Of course...that's the only reason why it's an issue.
All existing methods of
getting information out of a bk repository either involve running bk
yourself, or getting incomplete information. You have argued
(succesfully) that the CVS export doesn't lose very much information,
but an argument can be made that any information loss is too much. After
all, the information I am talking about is simply what was put into the
system by the developers in the first place.
Nonsense! It's the information put in there by BitKeeper. The BK2CVS
export is an almost perfect mirror of what you'd get if the developers
were using CVS or Subversion or whatever.
What are are effectively doing, then, is creating vendor lock-in based
on file format...a very Microsoftian approach. You are encouraging
developers to adopt your tool, but then telling them that if they ever
want to adopt a different tool, then they will have to forego using some
of the information that they created using your tool. So the decision of
which tool to be used becomes based on pain of switching, and not based
on technical merit. Hmmm.
-Tupshin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/