Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> >I'm sure you do, I've read your postings on various SCM mailing lists.
> >You'll have to get your test data elsewhere, sorry, we're not in the
> >business of helping you develop a competing product.  Using BK to do
> >that is a violation of the free use license and I'm sure you are aware
> >of that.  
> >
> Of course...that's the only reason why it's an issue.

Great, glad you understand that you are crossing the legal line.

> What are are effectively doing, then, is creating vendor lock-in based 
> on file format...a very Microsoftian approach. You are encouraging 
> developers to adopt your tool, but then telling them that if they ever 
> want to adopt a different tool, then they will have to forego using some 
> of the information that they created using your tool. So the decision of 
> which tool to be used becomes based on pain of switching, and not based 
> on technical merit. Hmmm.

What a pile of nonsense.  Let's translate this to reality.  You can't
figure out how to build the right answer and you have decided you need
access to internal information created by BitKeeper to reverse engineer
BitKeeper and you are complaining because we don't feel obligated to
give you that.

If you think you can create a better answer on your own, by all means,
do so, nobody is stopping you.  But whining that you aren't being helped
by the people who have figured it out is not exactly inspiring.  I can
assure you that I am not inspired to help you and I'm disgusted that yet
again an you have taken something that we are trying to do to help people
and turned it into a whine fest for your personal agenda.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm