From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Waychison Subject: Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 18:04:03 -0400 Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Message-ID: <40981353.4090100@sun.com> References: <4097DB47.2050603@zytor.com> <20040504215004.GG15656@neu.nirvana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <20040504215004.GG15656@neu.nirvana> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Axel Thimm Cc: autofs mailing list , raven@themaw.net, "H. Peter Anvin" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:04:55AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>As far as BK is concerned, the license is absolutely facist since it >>bans you from doing open source development in certain areas. For >>obvious reasons this is unacceptable to me. > > > I didn't want to place it into such wordings, but I agree. ;) > > My personal suggestion is to go with subversion. But even CVS is not a > blocker (if there is no consensus on something else) as it can still > be upgraded to subversion at a later point in time. Licensing opinions aside, using bitkeeper for the kernel stuff has a much desired benefit of making the tracking of the mainline kernel much easier. As for the userland stuff, I don't see a great need for anything more than CVS. - -- Mike Waychison Sun Microsystems, Inc. 1 (650) 352-5299 voice 1 (416) 202-8336 voice mailto: Michael.Waychison@Sun.COM http://www.sun.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOTICE: The opinions expressed in this email are held by me, and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAmBNSdQs4kOxk3/MRAgORAKCTYAlfhabWiG3UHiIs1YwNnjLdHgCeMSxm sQS4qOQ4qtszpmZy/9rOL0g= =/9KY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----