| |||||||||||||
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.auAndrew Morton at linux.conf.auPosted Apr 23, 2005 18:57 UTC (Sat) by jcm (subscriber, #18262)Parent article: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au
If you depend on a tool with insane developers, things will "end in tears."
(Log in to post comments)
Re: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 23, 2005 19:12 UTC (Sat) by cartman (subscriber, #11404) [Link] Well, USB maintainer Greg Kroah comes to mind...
Re: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 23, 2005 22:31 UTC (Sat) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] I do not know of any kernel developer with the name "Greg Kroah"
:)
Re: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 24, 2005 10:19 UTC (Sun) by cartman (subscriber, #11404) [Link] Lets make it Greg KH :)
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 23, 2005 20:18 UTC (Sat) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] Quite a few maintainers really like bit keeper. I liked poking through the bit keeper website and reading change logs. Source control seems like a good idea in my books.
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.
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 23, 2005 20:29 UTC (Sat) by Per_Bothner (subscriber, #7375) [Link] 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.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.
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 23, 2005 21:46 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] please point out anyone who was forced to use bitkeeper.
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
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 24, 2005 0:22 UTC (Sun) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] I think the idea is that when it came time to cross that bridge-- accessing the repository without using bitkeeper-- the bridge was removed. Larry
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 24, 2005 3:30 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] but the point was that nobody would be required to access the repository if they didn't agree to the bitkeeper license as the data was made available through other means (and it was made available, eventually even to the satisfaction of the bk critics)
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au Posted Apr 26, 2005 23:19 UTC (Tue) by speedster1 (subscriber, #8143) [Link] I am one developer who was discouraged from contributing to the kernel by the use of bitkeeper. In early 2.6 days I tried to get involved in bringing mpc8xx embedded pcc sub-architecture up to speed because it was lagging behind, and the maintainer Dan Malek told me he was not really interested in patches unless they were against his own bitkeeper tree. He would rather do the work himself than use patches generated against the latest in CVS.
|
|||||||||||||