From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger Subject: Re: On a free repacker Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 22:41:20 +0200 Message-ID: <40B25DF0.2090400@gmx.net> References: <20040519192831.GL24604@nysv.org> <200405201028.13184.reiser@namesys.com> <20040520184054.GR24604@nysv.org> <40AEBBA0.6060606@namesys.com> <20040521184451.GS24604@nysv.org> <200405211902.i4LJ25RI016978@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20040524203016.GA4990@nysv.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20040524203016.GA4990@nysv.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_T=F6rnqvist?= Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Hans Reiser , reiserfs-list@namesys.com Markus T=F6rnqvist wrote: > On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 03:02:05PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >=20 >=20 >>Larry McVoy's BitKeeper licensing might be an interesting model to follow. >>Not sure if you can make it work for a repacker thought.... >=20 >=20 > I must look into this. (Note, you can also enlighten me on this, since > I don't think I'll look into it yet). >=20 > All I know about BitKeeper is that it's not as simple to use as subversion > and subversion is free in all senses of the word. So I don't use BK. > And I wouldn't if Namesys wouldn't force me. Oh, that is interesting. I think we agree that CVS is not simple to use. But I'm interested in how subversion can be simpler than bitkeeper. # bk clone bk://some.url/of/the/project and you have a directory "project" # cd project # ./configure; make; make install for updates: # cd project # bk pull some projects may have a default of source not checked out, do it now # bk -r get Can it get simpler than this? I'm truly interested in anything that makes my life simpler. Regards, Carl-Daniel