Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Dave Jones <davej@suse.de>]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
 > > The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other 
 > > developers.
 > On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into
 > two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".

Care to back that up with numbers ? Take another look at the statistics
Larry posted after the 2.5.8 merge. ISTR pretty much a 50/50 split of
bk merges and regular GNU patches.  Whilst a large proportion of the gnu
patches were from the largish sync I did, this ratio seems to be holding
up over every release.

 > Oh I don't disagree at all.  Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
 > existed before.  But it is proprietary.  Which other tool in the tool chain
 > is proprietary?

Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux.
Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with
their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as it
was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?

 > > I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that. 
 > > Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a 
 > > much easier life...
 > And some have a more difficult one.  So it goes.

You've not pointed out where this difficulty is yet. Apart from
developers having to wade through this same discussion every third week.

-- 
| Dave Jones.        http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs