Re: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...

Richard Gooch
2002-04-27T18:59:26Z

Larry McVoy writes:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 06:21:27PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > It's not my call to make.
> >
> > I know that. I was wondering if *you personally* would have any objection.
>
> Daniel, I won't be nagged into supporting your point of view, sorry.
> I didn't even know that the doc was in the tree until you raised the
> point. I don't see a problem with it being in the tree and I do *not*
> support your attempts to remove it.
>
> You seem to think it has some great value to BitMover to have it in
> the tree. Sorry, that's not true. It's true to some small extent, in
> that it may reduce the number of support queries that we get related to
> the kernel. So we'd prefer it stayed in the tree.
>
> Why don't you ask Jeff to stick in the doc saying something like
>
> BitKeeper is not free software. You may use it for free, subject
> to the licensing rules (bk help bkl will display them), but it is
> not open source. If you feel strongly about 100% free software
> tool chain, then don't use BitKeeper. Linus has repeatedly stated
> that he will continue to accept and produce traditional "diff -Nur"
> style patches. It is explicitly not a requirement that you use
> BitKeeper to do kernel development, people may choose whatever tool
> works best for them.

I've added two subsections to the FAQ about this, which I hope will
avoid some future flamewars:
http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-20
http://www.tux.org/lkml/#s1-21

Regards,

Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca