Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed

Olivier Galibert
2005-02-16T15:43:57Z

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 06:45:27PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/15/2005 09:19 PM, kernel wrote:
>
> > Just catching up on this thread. I guess I'm ultimately surprised that
> > the developers here don't create a system *they* like with *their*
> > knowledge and skillsets.
> >
> > With all of the complaining about BK you'd think there'd be an equal
> > alternative.
>
> there is no need for that. There is already one. Subversion is a more
> than mature VCS. Apache group is switching to it, gcc people are
> strongly thinking about it, and those two are _huge_ projects with tons
> of developers, patches, trunks, etc.
>
> Perhaps its about time, that linux also switches.

Think what you want of Larry, but SVN is nowhere near BK is term of
capabilities (and neither is arch for he matter). It's only better
compared to cvs, and then not by that much.

SCM is hard and not sexy, I'm afraid.

OG.