Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>]

Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> 
> I'd really like everyone that's bitching about BK to shut the hell up and
> go work on some scripts to allow a maintainer to easily manage a
> BK<->$OTHER_SCM gateway.

ie: "We broke it.  You fix it".

It's not reasonable to expect people who shall not be using bitkeeper
to go off and perform enhancements to bitkeeper so that they can
continue to be effective kernel developers.

If bitkeeper proves to be significantly disadvantageous to non-bitkeeper
developers then it simply is not appropriate that bitkeeper be used
for kernel development at all.

If additional development around bitkeeper is needed then the onus
is upon the bitkeeper side to do that work.  (And yes, there are
sides now).

That being said, I don't see any need for additional development, 
unless people actually want increased functionality over that
which we've traditionally had.  Things generally will appear to
be unchanged for non-bitkeeper users because Linus will continue
to push out the regular prepatches.  This *has* to be done anyway,
so the testers can get at the tree promptly.

Also. The things being discussed here *matter* to some people.  Some
of the comments made by Larry, David, Cort, Rik and others have
coarsely sought to deligitimise the very reasons why a significant number
of kernel contributors and users are here at all.  Those comments
are monumentally insulting.

-