Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:07:00 +0100
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
To: Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
Cc: Asfand Yar Qazi <ay0305@qazi.f2s.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper?
Message-ID: <20050413130700.GA12244@linux-mips.org>
References: <425CB996.5090905@qazi.f2s.com> <buo1x9f41zg.fsf@mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <buo1x9f41zg.fsf@mctpc71.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1239
Lines: 27

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:36:35PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

> Asfand Yar Qazi <ay0305@qazi.f2s.com> writes:
> > I'm surprised nobody considered GNU Arch 
> > (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) to replace BitKeeper - it was 
> > probably started in direct response to the Linux Kernel using a 
> > non-free tool.
> >
> > I must say I haven't used it, but from reviews and comparisons I've 
> > read, it seems to be a good tool.
> 
> I agree (I use it) -- but of course it has its own issues.  For instance
> it has a _lot_ less attention payed to optimization than one might wish
> (judging from "git", this is very important to Linus :-).  The concept
> of "archives" and their associated namespace offer some nice advantages,
> but is a very different model than BK uses, and I presume sticking with
> the familiar and simple BK model was attractive.

You can get somebody to be doing some work with bitkeeper within a few
minutes.  Arch has a much longer getting started phase.

  Ralf
-
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/