Mercurial loses a developer [LWN.net]

Mercurial loses a developer

Posted Oct 1, 2005 0:49 UTC (Sat) by jake (editor, #205)
In reply to: Mercurial loses a developer by arcticwolf
Parent article: Mercurial loses a developer

> It's probably a good thing that despite Matt Mackall's lobbying for Mercurial on lkml, kernel development has continued with git.

I don't know why you would think that BitMover wouldn't make the same phone call to the employer of any git developer who used BitKeeper at work as well ... it doesn't seem like a Mercurial specific problem to me ...

jake

(Log in to post comments)

Mercurial loses a developer

Posted Oct 1, 2005 1:48 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Although none of this makes any sense to me.. Why would simply using software from one source be a commercial risk if a person develops a different product on the side?

It doesn't make sense.

Although after pausing and coming back this little tidbit is interesting:
"To avoid any possible perception of conflict, I have volunteered to
Larry that as long as I continue to use the commercial version of
BitKeeper, I will not contribute to the development of Mercurial."

Maybe he's hinting at that maybe they won't be using the commercial version of bittkeeper for much longer?? I hope so.

After reading this I wouldn't want to touch bitkeeper with a ten foot pole.

Not for Long

Posted Oct 1, 2005 5:33 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

I think drag has hit it. Nobody likes to be pushed around by one's software vendor. Mr. O'Sullivan himself might be switching his employer to a system that doesn't subject them to threatening phone calls. It makes me wonder, though, if his employer doesn't just resent his moonlighting on a Free Software project. Or maybe Mr. O'Sullivan doesn't plan to stay long with an employer so willing to be pushed around by its vendors. Perhaps he has found work helping users of other systems migrate to more modern ones and away from legally hazardous ones.

Donning the tinfoil hat for a moment, I wonder if this isn't all a puckish game cooked up by Linus and Larry to provoke people. Larry doesn't need the money, and he actually does have (or once had) a sense of humor.

Not for Long

Posted Oct 2, 2005 2:32 UTC (Sun) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link]

Donning the tinfoil hat for a moment, I wonder if this isn't all a puckish game cooked up by Linus and Larry to provoke people.

Amazing, that itch I get behind my left ear just before I discover a new conspiracy, kicked into overdrive just moments before reading the above quote. I'll withhold my thoughts on this for now, but you'd be correct in a different timeframe, say a few years ago. Given the outcome of recent events it gets harder and harder to put it past either one of them.

Not for Long

Posted Oct 2, 2005 22:09 UTC (Sun) by aya (guest, #19767) [Link]

Sorry, what does Linus stand to gain from Larry's pissing people off?

What Linus stands to gain

Posted Oct 5, 2005 5:49 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

Amusement value, mostly. Walk the plank, landlubbers! Etcetera, arrr.