Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261294AbVBREPy (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:15:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261232AbVBREPy (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:15:54 -0500 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:2515 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261261AbVBREPp (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:15:45 -0500 Message-Id: <200502180142.j1I1gJXC007648@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> To: "Sean" cc: "Chris Friesen" , "Lee Revell" , "d.c" , tytso@mit.edu, cs@tequila.co.jp, galibert@pobox.com, kernel@crazytrain.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed In-Reply-To: Message from "Sean" of "Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:24:01 CDT." <4912.10.10.10.24.1108675441.squirrel@linux1> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 17) Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:42:14 -0300 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1899 Lines: 38 "Sean" said: > On Thu, February 17, 2005 3:52 pm, Horst von Brand said: [...] > > "Best tool for the job" certainly includes minutiae like "benefits" and > > "price". > Thank you, that's my point. It's not just about the geeky microscopic > technical details. Linus clearly considered not just his /own/ workflow, but the workflow for the /whole/ kernel development community. In fact, BK was designed around the requirements Linus and other head hackers laid down for a SCM for use in Linux. And I'm quite sure that if Linus et al had serious misgivings about the license somehow hindering Linux development, they would have got it fixed or dumped BK. Linus has said time and again that he just cares for the very best kernel possible, nothing else. Sure, from the periphery of kernel development using something else looks simple. But you have to consider there are literaly dozens of trees (of the head maintainers) exchanging changesets. The flow of going into 2.6 is astonishing right now, I'd say some 3 or 5 times more than what got into the most furious 2.3 patch frenzies. Existing open source tools just aren't up to the task, as Linus has repeatedly said. Just now there are starting to be halfways useful SCM systems (almost all based on the "one central repository" idea, which doesn't cut it for Linux), but they aren't proven enough. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/