Re: openbkweb-0.0

Larry McVoy
2003-02-15T02:31:20Z

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 02:00:44AM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Vlad@geekizoid.com wrote:
> > Seriously, it's not like you [Alan] can't work under the
> > circumstances - you just refuse to. That's your choice - one I respect.
> > Why try to, or even advocate limiting Larry's choices? That seems unfair
> > and blatantly hypocritical at best. :-(
>
> Fwiw, even though Larry's offered to special-case Alan, (and presumed
> that Alan's doesn't work for anyone other than Red Hat), in private
> email Larry made it clear _I_ am not allowed to use Bitkeeper. This
> is because I work on scripts which analyse repositories - and even
> though I was prepared to limit the scope of that work for a time.

Err, tell the whole story Jamie. You are going down the path of trying
to make CVS work as much as possible like BitKeeper. That's a perfectly
reasonable thing for you to do but we are in no way obligated to help you.

As for Alan, we aren't offering to special case him. We would do what
we have done with any and every other concerned company: we worked out
an agreement which works for both companies and move on. I could really
care less that Red Hat ships CVS and bug fixes it. Where I get unhappy
is if Alan were using BK every day and walking over to the people working
on CVS and saying "you know, BK does this really cool thing, could you
do this?".
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm