Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers

[george anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> In article <20020306221305.GA370@elf.ucw.cz>,
> Pavel Machek  <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >
> >So you basically give bk for free because it is good for you. What if
> >it will stop being good for you ten years from now?
> 
> Guys, calm down.
> 
> A few points:
> 
>  - I certainly don't require BK use of anybody.  It makes my life
>    simpler with some people (mainly the ones that tend to be maintainers
>    of subsystems and send me lots of patches), but there are many
>    developers who do NOT use BK, and it doesn't slow them down at all.
> 
>    For example, see the FS patches from Al Viro: the only thing that BK
>    has resulted in as far as Al is concerned is that the changelogs are
>    a lot better and include his email comments.
> 
>    And I also export my tree as regular patches, the way I always have
>    (well, the actual format changed subtly, but that's purely syntactic)
> 
>  - If Larry turns to the dark side (or, as some would say, the "even
>    darker side" ;) we're _still_ ok. The data isn't going anywhere, he
>    can't close that down. We'd just have to export it into a new format.
> 
>    If worst comes to worst, and nobody has fixed CVS/subversion/whatever
>    by then, I can even just go back to how I used to work. Nothing lost.
> 
>  - If people in the open-source SCM community wake up and notice that
>    the current open-source SCM systems aren't cutting it, that's _good_.
>    But it's absolutely NOT an excuse to use them today.  Sorry.  I use
>    CVS at work, and I could never use it for Linux.  I took a look at
>    subversion, and it doesn't even come close to what I wanted.
> 
>    And I personally refuse to use inferior tools because of ideology. In
>    fact, I will go as far as saying that making excuses for bad tools
>    due to ideology is _stupid_, and people who do that think with their
>    gonads, not their brains.

Does this mean you will admit kgdb into the tree?  

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself :-)

-g

> 
> In short: nobody requires BK of anybody else.  A lot of people really
> like using it, though, and it does make some things easier.  Some people
> aren't convinced - David Miller is trying it out, and I haven't heard
> all happy sounds from him about it. Others have taken to BK like fish to
> water, and you'll pry it out of their dead cold hands.
> 
> The most productive thing people could do might be to just do a BK->CVS
> gateway, if you really feel like it.  Or just go on and ignore the fact
> that some people are using BK - you don't actually have to ever even
> know.
> 
>                 Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
George           george@mvista.com
High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/