| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Saturday, January 24, 2004, at 09:15 PM, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:11:26PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 8 |
>> What about BK? |
| 9 |
>> BK works much better than CVS/Subversion for kernels, and don't see |
| 10 |
>> any |
| 11 |
>> major reasons not to use it. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The major reason not to use it is that it would rip apart the project. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> A significant number of devs and users would be fairly likely to depart |
| 17 |
> if we were relying on bitkeeper. The license terms are _highly_ |
| 18 |
> authoritarian and controversial. I refuse to deal with the mess (and |
| 19 |
> nasty PR) it would leave, personally. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
For instance, if you work for a company that sells products that compete |
| 22 |
with bitmover ... you must purchase a bk license which is several |
| 23 |
thousand |
| 24 |
USD. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
It doesn't matter if you don't personally work on it, it doesn't matter |
| 27 |
if you |
| 28 |
in your own time work on open source software. Heck if you work on CVS |
| 29 |
you can't use bk without buying a license. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
bk is nice in some respects, but personally I think cvs could and should |
| 32 |
be actively worked on to add function that even subversion and bk |
| 33 |
doesn't have. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
As an example I think it would be quite handy to have n branches in a |
| 36 |
cvs |
| 37 |
tree but allow for "common" changes to pushed across a set of branches |
| 38 |
all |
| 39 |
at once in a single commit. Or allow for a patch to start in one |
| 40 |
branch but |
| 41 |
then allow a developer to push the patch to other branches but marked |
| 42 |
as experimental. So a normal cvs co / update of that branch it was |
| 43 |
pushed |
| 44 |
to would not get the patch BUT a maintainer / developer type could |
| 45 |
get a list of these pending 'experimental' patches, selectively apply |
| 46 |
them |
| 47 |
and then "promote" them so they are commited to the branch so a |
| 48 |
cvs co -r thatbranch would then have that "promoted" patch, otherwise |
| 49 |
to get the experimental pending patches one would have to do something |
| 50 |
like cvs co -r thatbranch --experimental. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Call me crazy but I think cvs needs some lovin'. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Tom Gall |
| 55 |
gentoo -- God started with stage 1, shouldn't you? |
| 56 |
tgall aatt uberh4x0r.org |
| 57 |
tom_gall aatt mac.com |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 60 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin) |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
iD8DBQFAE0IeNM6ZoaBWhQkRAgcKAJ9yki/OfbeZKOaw1AfPgZfe20qx5ACeKNWc |
| 63 |
Bgda6HL/YN5gjYWmOz2Qb1U= |
| 64 |
=R6/f |
| 65 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
-- |
| 69 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives