Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S310494AbSCGT44>; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:56:56 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S310495AbSCGT4r>; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:56:47 -0500
Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:6415 "EHLO
	www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S310494AbSCGT4k>;
	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 14:56:40 -0500
Message-ID: <3C87C583.C8565E4B@zip.com.au>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:54:43 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-pre2 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@drgw.net>
CC: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>,
        Kent Borg <kentborg@borg.org>,
        The Open Source Club at The Ohio State University 
	<opensource-admin@cis.ohio-state.edu>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, opensource@cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux 
 Maintainers
In-Reply-To: <20020305165233.A28212@fireball.zosima.org> <20020305163809.D1682@altus.drgw.net> <20020305165123.V12235@work.bitmover.com> <20020306095434.B6599@borg.org> <20020306085646.F15303@work.bitmover.com> <20020306221305.GA370@elf.ucw.cz>,
		<20020306221305.GA370@elf.ucw.cz>; from pavel@ucw.cz on Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:13:05PM +0100 <20020307101701.S1682@altus.drgw.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> 
> I'd really like everyone that's bitching about BK to shut the hell up and
> go work on some scripts to allow a maintainer to easily manage a
> BK<->$OTHER_SCM gateway.

ie: "We broke it.  You fix it".

It's not reasonable to expect people who shall not be using bitkeeper
to go off and perform enhancements to bitkeeper so that they can
continue to be effective kernel developers.

If bitkeeper proves to be significantly disadvantageous to non-bitkeeper
developers then it simply is not appropriate that bitkeeper be used
for kernel development at all.

If additional development around bitkeeper is needed then the onus
is upon the bitkeeper side to do that work.  (And yes, there are
sides now).

That being said, I don't see any need for additional development, 
unless people actually want increased functionality over that
which we've traditionally had.  Things generally will appear to
be unchanged for non-bitkeeper users because Linus will continue
to push out the regular prepatches.  This *has* to be done anyway,
so the testers can get at the tree promptly.

Also. The things being discussed here *matter* to some people.  Some
of the comments made by Larry, David, Cort, Rik and others have
coarsely sought to deligitimise the very reasons why a significant number
of kernel contributors and users are here at all.  Those comments
are monumentally insulting.

-
-
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/