Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S282861AbRL0WAd>; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:00:33 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S282872AbRL0WAY>; Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:00:24 -0500
Received: from altus.drgw.net ([209.234.73.40]:25094 "EHLO altus.drgw.net")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S282861AbRL0WAP>;
	Thu, 27 Dec 2001 17:00:15 -0500
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 15:59:56 -0600
From: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@drgw.net>
To: Dana Lacoste <dana.lacoste@peregrine.com>,
        "'Larry McVoy'" <lm@bitmover.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: BK scales, Bitmover doesn't [was Re: BK stuff ]
Message-ID: <20011227155956.G25200@altus.drgw.net>
In-Reply-To: <B51F07F0080AD511AC4A0002A52CAB445B2A3B@ottonexc1.ottawa.loran.com> <20011227133951.M25698@work.bitmover.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20011227133951.M25698@work.bitmover.com>; from lm@bitmover.com on Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 01:39:51PM -0800
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 01:39:51PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> My apologies to the list if this is considered off topic.  I changed the 
> subject so you can kill this thread if you like.  I know how popular BK
> discussions are :-)

(I'm quite sure this is off-topic, but oh well :-/ )

I want to make a note about something that concerns me, and I haven't 
really seen discussed much..

BK is quite nice, and from it's design, could probably scale to haveing 
every linux developer on the planet using the same 'base' linux kernel 
tree with no problem. (Please don't argue with this point, it's not what 
I'm concerned about)

However, the real problem I see is that althought Bitkeeper (the product)  
scales very well, Bitmover (the company) does NOT. Bitmover needs income 
to scale, and I'm worried that if BK takes off for kernel development, 
the demands on Bitmover from kernel developers will far outstrip the 
increase in income they get from 'commercial' developers. If this happens, 
it's only going to end in everyone getting pissed off. 

I can't think of any 'win/win' solutions for this, problem only 
'lose/lose' ones. Is anyone else worried about this, or am I just a 
pessimist? 

-- 
Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' |  hozer@drgw.net
-----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me -----
"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it
because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's 
why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Schulz
-
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/