[offtopic] BitKeeper & distributions, please read

Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com)
Sun, 04 Oct 1998 11:21:55 -0600


We've been discussing licensing terms for bitkeeper and there is some hope
that following the ghostscript model would be acceptable. I'd like to get it
resolved to people's satisfaction because there is something else I'd like to
do with BitKeeper.

Suppose I could get the RedHat and SUSE (and Caldera too) to do the following:

- ship their editors with BitSCCS linked in (editors includes stuff like
linuxconf for purposes of this discussion)
- make all the system config files revision controlled (behind your back
so you didn't see any difference)
- have a mode where all files added to a directory were revision controlled
(/var/lib/majodomo/lists for example).

Given the way that BitKeeper works, you could now ship around "patches"
which describe a particular configuration, like a "web serving,
masquerading, firewall". The patches could be relative to RedHat-5.1 or
SUSE-8.3.

I personnally would love this feature. The way I work is to hack on the
configuration over a period of days or even weeks. Eventually I get it to
work and I have no idea what I've done. And no easy way to figure it out.
This would solve that problem in a way that would be useful for other
people. I'd like to be able to go search on "web serving masquerading
firewall config patch" and just find the patch I needed for my system.

RedHat won't do it unless BitSCCS is free, so if I released an older
version that was GPLed, that might solve the problem.

Thoughts?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/