From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:18:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:17:59 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:63762 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 05:17:46 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:17:45 +0100 From: Dave Jones To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers Message-ID: <20020306111745.G6531@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020305165233.A28212@fireball.zosima.org.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <3C8543CC.A6017F76@zip.com.au.suse.lists.linux.kernel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from ak@suse.de on Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:40:44AM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:40:44AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > I also prefer not to use Bitkeeper as long as possible for similar reasons > and because it is too slow and clumpsy > (although it is already very hard because often source is only available > through it, e.g. for ppc or for 2.5 pre patches now -- hopefully this trend > does not continue) Something I've not yet worked out is why none of the proponents of arch, subversion etc are offering to run a mirror of Linus' bitkeeper tree for those who don't want to use bk, but "must have 0-day kernels". -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs