| 1 |
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:41:42PM -0600, Matthew Kennedy wrote: |
| 2 |
> "Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr." <bsder@×××××××.org> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> [...] |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > At the very least, consider Perforce before Bitkeeper. Several of the |
| 7 |
> > FreeBSD developers seem to use Perforce behind the scenes, and it hasn't |
| 8 |
> > seemed to provoke even a fraction of the animosity that Bitkeeper does. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> "Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a piece of software unless it |
| 12 |
> conforms to the GNU General Public License, GNU Lesser General |
| 13 |
> Public License or some other license approved by the Open Source |
| 14 |
> Initiative (OSI.)" -- http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/contract.xml |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I think we can cross Preforce/Bitkeeper off the list based on that. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Matt |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I agree. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 25 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives