Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:32:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:32:27 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:2832 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 6 Feb 2002 10:32:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 13:32:00 -0200 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: To: Florian Weimer Cc: Subject: Re: linux-2.5.4-pre1 - bitkeeper testing In-Reply-To: <87g04eljw6.fsf@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> Message-ID: X-spambait: aardvark@kernelnewbies.org X-spammeplease: aardvark@nl.linux.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Florian Weimer wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > The long-range plan, and the real payoff, comes if main developers start > > using bk too, which should make syncing a lot easier. That will take some > > time, I suspect. > > Do you think that at some point, using BitKeeper will become mandatory > for subsystem maintainers? ("mandatory" in the sense that > non-BitKeeper input is dealt with in a less timely fashion, for > example.) They're pretty much equally easy to deal with, except that the bitkeeper patches will always apply and will get better changelog entries ;) regards, Rik -- "Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS" -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ - 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/