Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
If you depend on a tool with insane developers, things will "end in tears."
So who, aside from Linus himself, actually really supported using BitKeeper as a development tool?
Re: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au
Posted Apr 23, 2005 19:12 UTC (Sat) by cartman (subscriber, #11404)
Posted Apr 23, 2005 22:31 UTC (Sat) by gregkh (subscriber, #8)
Posted Apr 24, 2005 10:19 UTC (Sun) by cartman (subscriber, #11404)
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au
Posted Apr 23, 2005 20:18 UTC (Sat) by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
As far as I know people were pretty careful not to force anyone to use bit keeper who didn't want to. People were all like, "Yeah. You say that now but see how long it goes before everyone has to start using bit keeper." It seems that these people were completely wrong and that Linus and Co kept their word.
Posted Apr 23, 2005 20:29 UTC (Sat) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375)
Now that's a curious way of putting it.
Linux and co "kept their word" because they were forced to
by McVoy withdrawing bitkeeper - and Linus has been vocally
and publically blaming the wrong person.
Posted Apr 23, 2005 21:46 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
how bitkeeper stopped being used has nothing to do with Linus and Co keeping their word that they would not force anyone to use bitkeeper
Posted Apr 24, 2005 0:22 UTC (Sun) by larryr (guest, #4030)
I think the idea is that when it came time to cross that bridge-- accessing the repository without using bitkeeper-- the bridge was removed.
Posted Apr 24, 2005 3:30 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Posted Apr 26, 2005 23:19 UTC (Tue) by speedster1 (subscriber, #8143)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds