Re: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T17:34:18Z

On Monday 22 April 2002 19:17, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 06:21:27PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > It's not my call to make.
> >
> > I know that. I was wondering if *you personally* would have any objection.
>
> Daniel, I won't be nagged into supporting your point of view, sorry.

I don't want you to, I want you to go on and get rich. However, you might
possibly be nagged into remembering you made an offer. Go back and look
at the offer, see if there were strings attached at the time.

> I didn't even know that the doc was in the tree until you raised the
> point. I don't see a problem with it being in the tree and I do *not*
> support your attempts to remove it.

No, of course not, you're biased. Expected.

> You seem to think it has some great value to BitMover to have it in
> the tree. Sorry, that's not true. It's true to some small extent, in
> that it may reduce the number of support queries that we get related to
> the kernel. So we'd prefer it stayed in the tree.

How about a URL instead? Any objection?

> Why don't you ask Jeff to stick in the doc saying something like
>
> BitKeeper is not free software. You may use it for free, subject
> to the licensing rules (bk help bkl will display them), but it is
> not open source. If you feel strongly about 100% free software
> tool chain, then don't use BitKeeper. Linus has repeatedly stated
> that he will continue to accept and produce traditional "diff -Nur"
> style patches. It is explicitly not a requirement that you use
> BitKeeper to do kernel development, people may choose whatever tool
> works best for them.

Why ask Jeff as opposed to submitting such a patch myself? The first thing
I'd do is edit out the 'repeatedly', perhaps the whole 'Linus stated' thing,
it's mere rhetoric.

I'd rather see the URL happen though, it just makes so much sense.

> > > Take it up with the people who own the tree.
> >
> > That's all of us, last I heard. Administrating it is, of course, another story.
>
> You are, as has been repeatedly pointed out, able to create your own tree,
> with your own rules, and see if you develop a following. It's way past time
> that you do so, it should be crystal clear to anyone with a clue that you
> are not the administrator of this tree.

True, but I'm a contributor and so I have an interest in it. It would be
better if you didn't pursue that line of argument.

How about the URL?

--
Daniel