Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Dave Jones
2002-04-20T17:20:55Z

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> > developers.
> On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into
> two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".

Care to back that up with numbers ? Take another look at the statistics
Larry posted after the 2.5.8 merge. ISTR pretty much a 50/50 split of
bk merges and regular GNU patches. Whilst a large proportion of the gnu
patches were from the largish sync I did, this ratio seems to be holding
up over every release.

> Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
> existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain
> is proprietary?

Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux.
Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with
their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as it
was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?

> > I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that.
> > Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a
> > much easier life...
> And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.

You've not pointed out where this difficulty is yet. Apart from
developers having to wade through this same discussion every third week.

--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs