| |||||||||||||
Andrew Morton at linux.conf.auAndrew Morton at linux.conf.auPosted Apr 23, 2005 21:46 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au by Per_Bothner Parent article: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au
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
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||