Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S293601AbSCGVnE>; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:43:04 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S293565AbSCGVmz>; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:42:55 -0500
Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:59407 "HELO
	netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id <S293362AbSCGVmk>;
	Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:42:40 -0500
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:42:11 -0300 (BRT)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@drgw.net>, 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: <3C87DA57.1B6CFC22@zip.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0203071833110.2181-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
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 Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> - If bitkeeper makes non-bitkeeper developers less effective than
>   they traditionally have been then Larry gets to fix that.

Since bitkeeper makes it easier for Linus to merge code
and the speed at which Linus is merging code seems to
have gone up, I'd say that bitkeeper has made life easier
even for those developers that aren't using it.

> - If non-bitkeeper users want *additional* functionality over what
>   has traditionally been available then they get to implement it.
>
> And Linus will keep pushing prepatches in the time-honoured
> manner, so there's no loss in non-bk users effectiveness.

Indeed.


> That being said, the adoption of bitkeeper does reduce the
> chances of non-bitkeeper users from ever getting more features,
> but realistically, that would never have happened anyway.

Actually, I like to think bitkeeper has given all of the
free software version control people a nice challenge.

Raising the bar by providing better software quality is
never a bad thing, IMHO.

regards,

Rik
-- 
<insert bitkeeper endorsement here>

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/