Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:10:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:10:28 -0500 Received: from [81.2.122.30] ([81.2.122.30]:4612 "EHLO darkstar.example.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:10:28 -0500 From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200302150821.h1F8Lavd000281@darkstar.example.net> Subject: BitKeeper To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:21:36 +0000 (GMT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1105 Lines: 29 The re-occuring thread about BitKeeper, and the appropriateness of using a closed-source tool to develop open source software is here yet again, and I'd just like to point out a few things: 1. Linus chose to use BitKeeper, presumably because it makes his work easier. 2. If people annoy Larry enough, he can stop providing hosting for us at bkbits, and stop providing new BitKeeper versions. If anybody ends up making point number 2 happen, do you think Linus is going to be happy about it? Regardless of your views on closed-source software, that is something to think about. Linux is an open source project - anybody is free to fork it and maintain their own tree, but so far nobody has. Quite the opposite, infact - everybody is trying to get their patches accepted in to Linus' tree. If you don't like BitKeeper, why not write an alternative? John. - 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/