Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:42:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:42:37 -0400 Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:40854 "EHLO bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:41:43 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:41:41 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020420104141.A29646@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Daniel Phillips , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Oh, my. A couple of thoughts: a) if it would ease the incredible silent (?) seething anguish of Daniel and others, I'd be happy to post a copy of Jeff's docs on the bitkeeper.com website someplace and you could replace the patch with a pointer to that. Seems silly but if it makes the uproar go away... b) To all of the "silently seething" folks, build a better answer for free and the kernel team will switch in a heartbeat. How about you think of BitKeeper as a stepping stone, a temporary thing until a better answer appears? It doesn't even have to be better, just good enough. We built BK to make the key people more efficient. To some extent, it is doing that. We'll keep trying to make it help make those people more efficient. That's *good* for the kernel. Which was always the goal. I'm terribly sorry that this product space doesn't generate enough consulting business that it can support itself in a politically correct way, but it doesn't. Get over it. You either get crap tools or you get tools that have a business model. In this space, the GPL doesn't work, you need some other way to pay for the work. If you don't agree, by all means, feel free to *prove* me wrong by designing, implementing, and supporting a better (or as good) answer. That is what Linus has said, and I agree, and the "silently seething" folks need to either put up or go back to being silent. A thing to keep in mind is that there are a large number of talkers, people who spend their time flaming but very little of their time writing useful code. Those people seem to have the most time to argue about licenses. There are other people who spend their time writing code, useful code. The goal is to help the second, smaller, group. BitKeeper seems to make that second group more productive. And it happily allows for the license haters to keep on working the way they used to, at the same speed as they used to. Daniel raised the point that BK has created the "ins" and the "outs". That's not quite right, it's a question of "efficient" versus "not quite so efficient". Yeah, it has the effect of creating an "in" group, but that is because it is easier to work that way, not because of any evil plan to take over the world with BK. To repeat: if http://www.bitkeeper.com/kernel-howto.html or something like that makes you happier, I'll do that immediately. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - 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/