Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:32:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:32:16 -0400 Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:3792 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:32:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:32:09 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Andrew Morton Cc: dean gaudet , Daniel Phillips , Larry McVoy , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020422163209.G20999@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To:

<3CC31F8D.455886F5@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 01:22:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > The reason why people do not express their disquiet is very plain - any > time anyone dares comes out, they promptly get their head kicked in. > Guys, this problem is permanent, and it's not going away. Yeah, it's a problem with religious perspectives at this point, things can occasionally get ugly :) I'm really glad you are speaking up, though... > Larry has stated that kernel's use of bitkeeper is not providing > collateral sales, and nor was it intended for that. Fair enough. > But it's inevitable that, in some people's eyes, kernel's very > public use of bitkeeper be viewed as promotion of bitmover's > product, and as endorsement of bitmover's licensing innovations. Agreed -- but one can also see it just as real life, a compromise with proven open source productivity gains. Linus, myself, and others have repeatedly been saying that we would use a superior free software tool... At the end of the day, I think the open source cause is advanced by this non-open-source tool, because Linux kernel development (or at least the rate of patch application) is by all measures "faster." By extension, discouraging use of BitKeeper when it is clearly useful potentially harms the cause of open source. > Linus took the work of others and used it in a way which they did > not expect, without their permission, and contrary to their wishes. > He knew what he was doing, and he knew that some wouldn't like it. I think that's a bit unfair :( All Linus did was add an additional method of patch transport... the source code is still the same bitrotten hunk of poo we all know, love, and work on :) > My take on Daniel's patch is that it is addressing the symptoms, > not the problem. And the problem is unsolveable. The differences > of opinion are irreconcilable. Both sides are populated by > perfectly sensible people with perfectly legitimate points of view. Pretty much my conclusion... Jeff - 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/