From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 14:51:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 14:51:30 -0500 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:35084 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 14:51:29 -0500 Message-ID: <3E626323.7060801@pobox.com> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 15:01:39 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik Organization: none User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021213 Debian/1.2.1-2.bunk X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed *notrademarkhere* clone References: <200303020011.QAA13450@adam.yggdrasil.com> <3E615C38.7030609@pobox.com> <20030302014039.GC1364@dualathlon.random> <3E616224.6040003@pobox.com> <3E623B9A.8050405@pobox.com> <3E624FD4.3020807@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <3E624FD4.3020807@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> >> My counter-question is, why not improve an _existing_ open source SCM >> to read and write BitKeeper files? Why do we need yet another brand >> new project? >> > > I don't disagree with that. However, the question you posited was > "would one be useful", and I think the answer is unequivocally yes. Ok, I'll grant that. :) I think a BK clone is detrimental to the overall open source SCM world, is my main point. I was thinking more along the lines of "useful to 'the cause'" ;-) > Furthermore, I don't agree with the "compatibility == bad" assumption I > read into your message. Well, I disagree with that assumption too :) My main objection is that a BK clone would divert attention from another effort (such as OpenCM), with the end result that neither the BK clone nor OpenCM are as good (or better) than BitKeeper. >> AFAICS, a BK clone would just further divide resources and mindshare. >> I personally _want_ an open source SCM that is as good as, or better, >> than BitKeeper. The open source world needs that, and BitKeeper needs >> the competition. A BK clone may work with BitKeeper files, but I >> don't see it ever being as good as BK, because it will always be >> playing catch-up. > > > Yes. Personally, I've spent quite a bit of time with OpenCM after a > suggestion from Ted T'so. It's looking quite promising to me, although > I haven't yet used it to maintain a large project. Interesting... Here's the link, in case others want to check it out: http://www.opencm.org/