Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 19:17:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 19:17:15 -0400 Received: from thebsh.namesys.com ([212.16.7.65]:62983 "HELO thebsh.namesys.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 19:17:14 -0400 Message-ID: <3DA0C5C3.3060304@namesys.com> Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 03:22:43 +0400 From: Hans Reiser User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2a) Gecko/20020910 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miquel van Smoorenburg CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jmacd , Rik van Riel Subject: Re: New BK License Problem? References: <20021006075627.I9032@work.bitmover.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2758 Lines: 66 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: >In article , >Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >>so BK cannot be used to access the kernel tree in that case, correct? I'm >>just wondering where the boundary line is. Eg. if i started working on a >>versioned filesystem today, i'd not be allowed to use BK. I just have to >>keep stuff like that in mind when using BK. >> >> > >And what if that versioning filesystem got accepted into mainline? >Every kernel developer would have to buy a BK license. > >Either that or a versioning filesystem cannot get into mainline. >Sorry Hans, no reiser4 in the kernel. > >Mike. > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > > > reiser4 will not contain version control. I don't know when version control will go into ReiserFS. I do think it should go in eventually though, as it makes distributed filesystems more effective if there is version control functionality. We would do something that in no way resembled BK. We would do it after implementing the core distributed tree algorithms. Probably not going to happen in less than 3-5 years. Unless I became a much larger business, it would not have the fancy gui and all that, and it would not really be targeted at source code, it would be targeted at distributed file system users and applications. It would handle source code only as an accidental side effect. I don't find the version control for programmers market nearly as interesting as the version control for distributed/disconnected filesystem users market. Probably Larry could buy a license from us for it, and then do his source code targeted stuff on top of it.;-) But hey, talk to Josh Macdonald, the author of PRCS. If he wants to code it, I'll pay for his time to do it. Right now, I think he is recovering from the stress of working on reiser4, and last we spoke he was more interested in doing key based file system security models than in adding version control to reiser5. There are so many features missing from ReiserFS, and I am not really picky about what order they go in..... With Reiser4 we finally have storage layer performance "good enough for now", and now we can focus on semantic features and fun/easy stuff for a few years. Hans - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/