Message-ID: <3865.10.10.10.24.1108684615.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <1108684483.15453.7.camel@krustophenia.net>
References: <20050214020802.GA3047@bitmover.com><4214CC9B.7090001@nortel.com>
    <3757.10.10.10.24.1108659538.squirrel@linux1><200502171825.08631.tomlins@cam.org><1742.10.10.10.24.1108683124.squirrel@linux1>
    <1108684483.15453.7.camel@krustophenia.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:56:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed
From: "Sean" <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
To: "Lee Revell" <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
Cc: "Ed Tomlinson" <tomlins@cam.org>, "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com>,
       "d.c" <aradorlinux@yahoo.es>, tytso@mit.edu, cs@tequila.co.jp,
       galibert@pobox.com, kernel@crazytrain.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 863
Lines: 26

On Thu, February 17, 2005 6:54 pm, Lee Revell said:

> Ed did not say it was a choice between BK and nothing.  He said "Linus
> has tried other SCMs.  They did not suffice."  Did you even read his
> comment?

The point you missed is that it's not an honest comparison to look at the
post BK/ pre BK situation and pretend that BK was the only option that
would have produced the list of benefits that Ed outlined.  Linus has been
known to be wrong before.

> Please don't cc: me on this thread anymore, unless it's about some work
> you did to bring BK functionality to a free SCM.

No need to respond.

Cheers,
Sean


-
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/