* Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper?
@ 2005-04-13 6:17 Asfand Yar Qazi
2005-04-13 6:36 ` Miles Bader
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Asfand Yar Qazi @ 2005-04-13 6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hi,
I'm surprised nobody considered GNU Arch
(http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) to replace BitKeeper - it was
probably started in direct response to the Linux Kernel using a
non-free tool.
I must say I haven't used it, but from reviews and comparisons I've
read, it seems to be a good tool.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper?
2005-04-13 6:17 Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper? Asfand Yar Qazi
@ 2005-04-13 6:36 ` Miles Bader
2005-04-13 13:07 ` Ralf Baechle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Miles Bader @ 2005-04-13 6:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Asfand Yar Qazi; +Cc: linux-kernel
Asfand Yar Qazi <ay0305@qazi.f2s.com> writes:
> I'm surprised nobody considered GNU Arch
> (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) to replace BitKeeper - it was
> probably started in direct response to the Linux Kernel using a
> non-free tool.
>
> I must say I haven't used it, but from reviews and comparisons I've
> read, it seems to be a good tool.
I agree (I use it) -- but of course it has its own issues. For instance
it has a _lot_ less attention payed to optimization than one might wish
(judging from "git", this is very important to Linus :-). The concept
of "archives" and their associated namespace offer some nice advantages,
but is a very different model than BK uses, and I presume sticking with
the familiar and simple BK model was attractive.
-Miles
--
Suburbia: where they tear out the trees and then name streets after them.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper?
2005-04-13 6:36 ` Miles Bader
@ 2005-04-13 13:07 ` Ralf Baechle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ralf Baechle @ 2005-04-13 13:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Miles Bader; +Cc: Asfand Yar Qazi, linux-kernel
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:36:35PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Asfand Yar Qazi <ay0305@qazi.f2s.com> writes:
> > I'm surprised nobody considered GNU Arch
> > (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) to replace BitKeeper - it was
> > probably started in direct response to the Linux Kernel using a
> > non-free tool.
> >
> > I must say I haven't used it, but from reviews and comparisons I've
> > read, it seems to be a good tool.
>
> I agree (I use it) -- but of course it has its own issues. For instance
> it has a _lot_ less attention payed to optimization than one might wish
> (judging from "git", this is very important to Linus :-). The concept
> of "archives" and their associated namespace offer some nice advantages,
> but is a very different model than BK uses, and I presume sticking with
> the familiar and simple BK model was attractive.
You can get somebody to be doing some work with bitkeeper within a few
minutes. Arch has a much longer getting started phase.
Ralf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-04-13 13:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-04-13 6:17 Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper? Asfand Yar Qazi
2005-04-13 6:36 ` Miles Bader
2005-04-13 13:07 ` Ralf Baechle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox