Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au

Posted Apr 24, 2005 0:22 UTC (Sun) by larryr (guest, #4030)
In reply to: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au by dlang
Parent article: Andrew Morton at linux.conf.au

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

(Log in to post comments)

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.