| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:11:26PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:36:39PM -0600, Brian Jackson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > We can't really subject cvs.gentoo.org to the kind of abuse that 5 kernel |
| 4 |
> > trees would introduce. Subversion isn't an option (and I'd assume that arch, |
| 5 |
> > and others isn't either). |
| 6 |
> What about BK? |
| 7 |
> BK works much better than CVS/Subversion for kernels, and don't see any |
| 8 |
> major reasons not to use it. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The major reason not to use it is that it would rip apart the project. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
A significant number of devs and users would be fairly likely to depart |
| 14 |
if we were relying on bitkeeper. The license terms are _highly_ |
| 15 |
authoritarian and controversial. I refuse to deal with the mess (and |
| 16 |
nasty PR) it would leave, personally. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 20 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives