Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261409AbTIYRhm (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:37:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261685AbTIYRgU (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:36:20 -0400 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:4288 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261409AbTIYRbq (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:31:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:30:58 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "Eric W. Biederman" cc: andrea@kernel.org, Kernel Mailing List , Matthew Wilcox , Marcelo Tosatti , Larry McVoy Subject: Re: log-buf-len dynamic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1824 Lines: 39 On 25 Sep 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > > However, that only explains why you don't use BitKeeper. And everybody > > accepts that. When I started to use BK, I made it _very_ clear that > > service for non-BK users will be _at_least_ as good as it ever was before > > I started using BK. > > And for the core kernel development this is true. There are subprojects > that are currently using BK that you can't even get the code without > BK. And the only reason they are using BK is they are attempting to > following how Linux is managed. So having the Linux kernel > development use BK does have some down sides. That's actually a pretty good point. I end up releasing "sparse" only as a BK archive, simply because I'm too lazy to care and there aren't enough people involved (and those that _are_ involved do actually end up re-exporting it as non-BK, but that doesn't invalidate your point). I don't know what the solution to it might be - but I don't think the reason they are using BK is that they are trying to emulate "the great kernel project". I know it wasn't for me - it's just that once you get used to BK, there's no way you'll ever go back to CVS willingly. > In addition there are some major gains to be had in standardizing on a > distributed version control system that everyone can use, and > unfortunately BK does not fill that position. I don't disagree, but I don't see a real way to solve it. As Larry will tell you, the technical problems are bigger than you imagine. So a BK killer won't be coming any time soon, methinks. Linus - 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/