Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@drgw.net>]

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:13:05PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > I also dislike the irony of BK being proprietary.  Sure, they might
> > > have an enlightened and generous attitude not, but PGP used to be
> > > free, then it became kinda free and then it became orphaned.  Luckily
> > > GPG came along, luckily PGP didn't have a monoploy on our history.
> > 
> > PGP didn't have a business model, we do, and part of our business model
> > is to give it away to some of the world.  It's a good business model,
> > BK is dramatically better because the PPC team used it and Cort went
> > through all sorts of stuff as BK improved.  BK would easily be a
> > year
> 
> So you basically give bk for free because it is good for you. What if
> it will stop being good for you ten years from now?

Then we move on to another system. This is why I think we need some kind
of gateway to another SCM. If BK goes away, we could export everything to
tarballs and patches or whatever, but it would be a large PITA, and stop
lots of people's development for awhile. (I've done bk->cvs this way once
before, it was really ugly, and I never want to do it again given the
choice).

I'd really like everyone that's bitching about BK to shut the hell up and
go work on some scripts to allow a maintainer to easily manage a
BK<->$OTHER_SCM gateway. Either give me a working alternative to BK or go
run for political office. Until I see an alternative, I'm going to
continue advocating for real developers to use BK, and complainers to show
me an alternative.

-- 
Troy Benjegerdes | master of mispeeling | 'da hozer' |  hozer@drgw.net
-----"If this message isn't misspelled, I didn't write it" -- Me -----
"Why do musicians compose symphonies and poets write poems? They do it
because life wouldn't have any meaning for them if they didn't. That's 
why I draw cartoons. It's my life." -- Charles Schulz