Re: New BK License Problem?

Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-10-06T16:33:07Z

Em Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 03:43:08AM -0400, Skip Ford escreveu:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > I don't do any pre-patches or daily patches any more, because it's all
> > automated. There are several snapshot bots that give you patches a lot
> > more often than "every 2 days". You don't need BK to use it, it's there in
> > the good old diff format.

> However, a much larger percentage of patches are applied to your tree without
> a diff being posted to lkml first. My only wish would be that you only
> accept patches through the mailing list, and only from posts that include at
> least a link to a diff.

Are you dying to see X.25, lapbether, LLC, IPX and other non-sexy/mainstream
patches here? I can start doing it for the stuff I've been sending only via
bitkeeper to David Miller, I'm mostly alone in this and having people
commenting on it would be great, but I don't think that people that have
interest in this aren't helping/commenting because I don't post the changesets
here, after all if they're interested they can use the regular releases from
Linus or the diffs provided by bot services generally available.

If people think that this will help with development of the stuff I work with,
please say so.

Patches that touches the networking core, etc, I post to netdev, and not here,
and this is done by lots of other people, for several subsystems, and
contributes to the feeling that things are not being posted to lkml. They are
not, never had, nothing new, only BK has a license people disagree with and all
of a sudden is the reason for patches not being more reviewed, etc. I beg to
disagree.

- Arnaldo