Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:00:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:00:28 -0500 Received: from garrincha.netbank.com.br ([200.203.199.88]:21009 "HELO netbank.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:00:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:58:57 -0300 (BRT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@imladris.surriel.com To: Andrew Morton Cc: Cort Dougan , Subject: Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers In-Reply-To: <3C87DFEF.DBA636CB@zip.com.au> 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 Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > Problem? Well partly I just can't be assed to use the thing because > I'm comfortable with my own scripts and all revision control systems > just get in your face and suck. That's what I thought too, but bitkeeper has convinced me to get over that prejudice ;) > But also because I'm here to improve the body of public software, > and at the end of the day, any support which I put into bitkeeper > won't help there. (using == supporting). That's a tradeoff everybody has to make for himself. Personally the time bitkeeper saves me helps improving Linux a lot, so using bitkeeper does help increase my contribution to the body of public software. Of course, this is everybody's personal choice and you're just as right (or wrong) as I am ;) regards, Rik -- 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/