Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261959AbTITUPQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:15:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261963AbTITUPQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:15:16 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:15763 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261959AbTITUPK (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Sep 2003 16:15:10 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 13:14:56 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Larry McVoy , Bernd Schmidt , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Gateways (was Re: Fix for wrong OOM killer trigger?) Message-ID: <20030920201456.GA22065@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Jamie Lokier , Larry McVoy , Bernd Schmidt , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030919191613.36750de3.bless@tm.uka.de> <20030919192544.GC1312@velociraptor.random> <20030919203538.D1919@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20030919200117.GE1312@velociraptor.random> <20030919205220.GA19830@work.bitmover.com> <20030920033153.GA1452@velociraptor.random> <20030920043026.GA10836@work.bitmover.com> <20030920135430.GA17559@work.bitmover.com> <20030920195610.GB8953@mail.jlokier.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030920195610.GB8953@mail.jlokier.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=0.5, required 7, AWL, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3179 Lines: 61 On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:56:10PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Larry McVoy wrote: > > Nonsense. This isn't closed source issue at all because the issue is the > > CVS gateway. You don't need source to write that gateway and you could > > have (and recall that Linus said you should have) written the gateway > > yourself, hosted it yourself, and maintained it yourself. > > I was prepared to write such a gatway. > > We discussed it, and found that the combination of BitKeeper license > and BitMover's control over the kernel repository prevents it. This > was the subject of a heated debate. > > I believe that debate was the reason BitMover wrote and now host the > BK->CVS gateway, which other gateways are built upon. > > It's a brilliant solution, and thank you, I am glad of your work, > but let's not pretend that a 3rd party is in a position to offer such > a gateway. Anyone who obeys the license is welcome to write a gateway. Lots of people have done lots of interesting things around BK without violating the license. You explicitly stated an intent that violated the license, so no, _you_ can't write one but plenty of other people can. Let's also not pretend that it is an easy task or that keeping it working is easy. We're going from a system that works to a system that is extremely fragile. When it breaks it takes about 4-5 hours of a 2.1Ghz Athlon with a GB of ram to rebuild the gateway. Let's also not pretend that it is cheap to host this. It's all well and good to complain that you weren't allowed or whatever, but unless you are going to build the gateway, make it work, make it keep working, host it, and maintain that host, then you need to stop pretending that you were going to solve the problem. You were prepared to _attempt_ to write such a gateway. Pavel was going to write one, Daniel was just dieing to write a BK replacement, etc. Lots of people would love to have a BK replacement but they all go look at the problem space and find out it's a lot harder than they thought and they go work on something more fun. I'd really like to know what all you guys would do if you were in my shoes. Over and over you are willing to throw stones but not one of you has done 1/100th of the SCM work required to replace BK or even build a gateway. Complaining is fun and all, but I'd sure like to see you come up with and actually execute on a plan that provides everything we provide and has a GPLed result. That would be an amazing feat and I'd come work for you. Until you do, however, how about backing down a bit? In spite of all the flames, we have an excellent track record of providing you free service, providing you free tools, and providing you free support. In the face of your non-stop complaining that's pretty amazing and is it really so much to ask you to leave off the flaming? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/