BK is not heaven, sure [Was: Re: Bitkeeper]

From: J.A. Magallon (jamagallon@able.es)
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 17:25:48 EST

On 07.19, Svein Ove Aas wrote:
> Summa summarum:
> Having a Free CVS is good.
> Having a useful BitKeeper is sometimes better.
> Having a Free CVS with all the features of BK would be best.

Oh, please, stop thinking BitKeeper is the best thing since sliced bread !!!
I have never used BK. I just use CVS as client. I have not looked at SVN.
BK sure surpasses every other SCM tool.
But please, stop thinking about BK clones, BK features, all BK.

As I read in some posts in this thread, people is doing useful work on
a free SCM. Could you all put your efforts on generating a list of
features/requirements you would like for a SCM system specialized for kernel
development, and send them to the developers, instead of arguing about
legal impact of reverse-engineering BK. And let the developers think about
protocols, work flow, ways to do things, and so on. They can find a way
not even similiar to the BK one, and even better...

That way perhaps in one year you could suck data from BK and at least try
a new system...

J.A. Magallon <jamagallon@able.es>      \                 Software is like sex:
werewolf.able.es                         \           It's better when it's free
Mandrake Linux release 9.2 (Cooker) for i586
Linux 2.4.22-pre6-jam1m (gcc 3.3.1 (Mandrake Linux 9.2 3.3.1-0.3mdk))
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 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 22:00:36 EST