Hi,
I just meant that a free source control system equal to BitKeeper is a very
important project, not because we need to replace BitKeeper in the kernel,
but because the fact that we *can't* is a glaring omission in the free
software world.
I still think a Kernel Cousin for this project would be a great thing. If
anyone decides to give it a shot, please email me. In the meantime, I
plan to start using Subversion for my own projects as soon as it starts
looking stable. And thank you all for working on it!
Be well,
Zack
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:30:03AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:21, Zack Brown wrote:
> > Sorry if this is off topic. I've been keenly interested in the source
> > control debate in the Linux kernel mailing list; it seems to me that
> > subversion, or any viable alternative to BitKeeper, is a very important
> > project for a number of reasons that are probably obvious to everyone
> > on this list.
>
> I'm not sure if it's really worth pursuing Subversion in this regard.
> Linux kernel development, as I understand it, is very hierarchical,
> which makes it a good fit for Bitkeeper. Subversion makes a better fit
> for projects like the *BSDs, which have a mostly equal group of
> developers working on a central repository.
>
> I also don't think of it as a great travesty that Bitkeeper is being
> used for Linux kernel development. Users are certainly no worse off
> than they were before any kind of source control system was in use.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
--
Zack Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 20 22:00:17 2002