Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262068AbVBKJEi (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:04:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262044AbVBKJBW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:01:22 -0500 Received: from sd291.sivit.org ([194.146.225.122]:64725 "EHLO sd291.sivit.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262043AbVBKJAY (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:00:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:02:04 +0100 From: Stelian Pop To: lm@bitmover.com, Alexandre Oliva , Francois Romieu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto Message-ID: <20050211090204.GC3263@crusoe.alcove-fr> Reply-To: Stelian Pop Mail-Followup-To: Stelian Pop , lm@bitmover.com, Alexandre Oliva , Francois Romieu , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20050204214015.GF5028@deep-space-9.dsnet> <20050204233153.GA28731@electric-eye.fr.zoreil.com> <20050205193848.GH5028@deep-space-9.dsnet> <20050205233841.GA20875@bitmover.com> <20050208154343.GH3537@crusoe.alcove-fr> <20050208155845.GB14505@bitmover.com> <20050209155113.GA10659@bitmover.com> <20050210211700.GA26361@bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050210211700.GA26361@bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1849 Lines: 42 On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:17:00PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > So if we knew that doing this would hurt our business, which according > you is the only thing we care about, then why would we do it? The usual > response is the marketing value we get out of it. Yes, we certainly do > get some positive marketing out of this. We also get a ton of negative > marketing, you are aware of that, right? [...] What you also get is a lot of testing coming from a real-world big project, and you seem to give a lot of importance to this: > I think you are dreaming. You've gone from wanting enough information > to supposedly debug your source tree to being explicit about wanting to > recreate the entire BK history in a different system. The former is a > reasonable request, I suppose, but the latter is just a blatent request > for us to help debug and stress test a competing system. You are also saying: > You are saying we are an evil money grubbing corporation because we > don't want to give our technology to our competitors. Fair enough, > that's true, we don't. But that's not the point. The point is, as Nicolas said it very well: > Again, the BK value is in the efficiency and reliability it has to > handle a tree like the Linux kernel, not in the Linux kernel tree. It's > not necessary for you to give away that value in order to provide the > simple information needed to reconstruct the Linux tree structure as > people are asking. And the whole discussion happens because you disagree on this one. I'm fed up now so I'll stop here. Stelian. -- Stelian Pop - 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/