| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:49:27PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > A significant number of devs and users would be fairly likely to depart |
| 4 |
> > if we were relying on bitkeeper. The license terms are _highly_ |
| 5 |
> > authoritarian and controversial. I refuse to deal with the mess (and |
| 6 |
> > nasty PR) it would leave, personally. |
| 7 |
> I'm suggesting BK only for keeping the kernel trees managable. Users |
| 8 |
> will not see them in any form as they will only ever be downloading |
| 9 |
> tarballs/patches from the gentoo mirrors. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Users don't have to see the mainline kernel in BK, either, but there's |
| 13 |
still a BK flamewar there every two months or so. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The upstream linux kernel itself is already in BK, so the point of users |
| 16 |
> caring about something coming from BK isn't really valid. If the |
| 17 |
> developers working on the kernel have no objections to trying BK, it |
| 18 |
> could at least be given a chance for testing. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Sure it is. Check the lkml archives. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 24 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives