| |||||||||||||
KHB: Automating bug huntingKHB: Automating bug huntingPosted Nov 22, 2006 15:57 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)Parent article: KHB: Automating bug hunting
I note with some amusement that the fascinating eXplode paper describes at one point testing `an expensive commercial [version control] system we did not have source code for, denoted as expENSiv (its license precludes naming it directly)', and then proceeds to demonstrate the utter futility of such ludicrous license clauses by describing that version control system well enough to enable anyone to google up the real name of the version control system in about ten seconds. (The necessary description was only a few words, and I can't see how they could have mentioned *anything* about it without including that description.)
I shall not mention the name of that version-control system myself since the mention of ridiculous license terms in association with a version control system itself provides enough information to enable readers of LWN to unambiguously determine which version control system it is. The terms are particularly ridiculous because one of the bugs they found in it they also found in Subversion and several other version control systems as well, so would hardly serve as a reason not to buy it. (The ridiculous license terms, on the other hand, *would* be a reason not to buy it, as would its proprietary nature.)
(Log in to post comments)
KHB: Automating bug hunting Posted Nov 23, 2006 0:47 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Does anybody even use ExpENSiv anymore? Their recovery tool requires running "-r check -f"... the dangers of idiotic license restrictions combined with command-line idioms. :)
ExpENSiv Posted Nov 26, 2006 20:32 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] It would be nice if someone would say here what product it is, anyway. Just for fun, I looked at the paper and tried to google some of the words it uses in connection with the product, but came up dry. There are lots of LWN readers who don't have enough background in code control systems to figure it out.
ExpENSiv Posted Nov 27, 2006 5:06 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Just Google "-r check -f".
ExpENSiv Posted Nov 29, 2006 3:10 UTC (Wed) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] BitKeeper, then.The quotes make a lot of difference in Googling.
ExpENSiv Posted Nov 28, 2006 22:29 UTC (Tue) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] There are lots of LWN readers who don't have enough background in code control systems to figure it out.Apparently it's a proprietary revision-control product about which LWN readers heard a great deal, particularly in early 2005. ;-) Greg
|
|||||||||||||