As part of the "Better SCM" site (that is still under construction), I
wrote a few essays about BitKeeper:
http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/
I am a former user of BitKeeper and the bkbits.net service who used it for
maintaining the code of two of my pet projects. The articles include:
An analysis of the suitability of BitKeeper for Free Software Developers -
analyzes the product itself, the support given by BitMover, the BKBits.net
service and the license. Contains some tips for new users.
Why a change of the BitKeeper licensing would be a good idea (from
BitMover's POV) - a rational analysis why a change in BitMover's strategy
can yield them a greater advantage in the long run. (note that I do not
recommend completely Open-Sourcing it)
There's also an old and slightly deprecated article entitled "GPLing BK"
which gives several advantages that a more liberal BitKeeper license would
give BitMover. (it is deprecated because I no longer thing a complete
freeing would be a good idea at this point).
Comments, suggestions, corrections and flames are welcome.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish [email protected]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
He who re-invents the wheel, understands much better how a wheel works.
On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 12:18:24PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> As part of the "Better SCM" site (that is still under construction), I
> wrote a few essays about BitKeeper:
please do not spam the list with this crap
j.
--
toyota power: http://indigoid.net/
While the posting wasn't directly linked to kernel development, I did
find the analysis to be thought provoking. I think calling it spam
MIGHT be too strong.
john slee wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 12:18:24PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
>
>>As part of the "Better SCM" site (that is still under construction), I
>>wrote a few essays about BitKeeper:
>
>
> please do not spam the list with this crap
>
> j.
>