Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271911AbTGRVuZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:50:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271894AbTGRVsN (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:48:13 -0400 Received: from mail47-s.fg.online.no ([148.122.161.47]:52944 "EHLO mail47.fg.online.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271871AbTGRVq1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:46:27 -0400 From: Svein Ove Aas To: =?iso-8859-1?q?J=F6rn=20Engel?= , Richard Stallman Subject: Re: Bitkeeper Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 00:00:37 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030718210601.GA29771@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> In-Reply-To: <20030718210601.GA29771@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Description: clearsigned data Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200307190000.41301.svein.ove@aas.no> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1830 Lines: 48 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 fredag 18. juli 2003, 23:06, skrev J?rn Engel: > On Fri, 18 July 2003 15:51:36 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client > > that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching > > to that from Bitkeeper. At that point, McVoy will face a hard choice: > > if he carries out these threats, he risks alienating the community > > that he hopes will market Bitkeeper for him. > > I've told other people before and I'll tell you again: > Please, pretty please, leave linux-kernel for discussions about the > linux kernel and leave the bitkeeper flames for those that enjoy > electronic pyrotechnic. > > Apart from that: Larry is right. Noone cared about crappy ol' cvs > until bk came alone and showed what everyone already knew. If you > didn't have to improve cvs back then, it is still as good as it was, > so thy improve it now? Pure jealousy? No, I think we'd improve CVS because bk came along and showed us what we already knew. Bitkeeper *is* better, but as long as the ideas those improvements are based on don't get patented there is no reason for us not to claim them for ourselves. Summa summarum: Having a Free CVS is good. Having a useful BitKeeper is sometimes better. Having a Free CVS with all the features of BK would be best. - - Svein Ove Aas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/GG4H9OlFkai3rMARAkt/AKCdvO7UCiK2AdBKZg0sSoXghmW6vgCfedcB zKSd79Dwa/ZPwijYMtR3lO0= =Xuj7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - 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/