Re: Bitkeeper

[Svein Ove Aas <svein.ove@aas.no>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

fredag 18. juli 2003, 23:06, skrev Jörn Engel:
> On Fri, 18 July 2003 15:51:36 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client
> > that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching
> > to that from Bitkeeper.  At that point, McVoy will face a hard choice:
> > if he carries out these threats, he risks alienating the community
> > that he hopes will market Bitkeeper for him.
>
> I've told other people before and I'll tell you again:
> Please, pretty please, leave linux-kernel for discussions about the
> linux kernel and leave the bitkeeper flames for those that enjoy
> electronic pyrotechnic.
>
> Apart from that: Larry is right.  Noone cared about crappy ol' cvs
> until bk came alone and showed what everyone already knew.  If you
> didn't have to improve cvs back then, it is still as good as it was,
> so thy improve it now?  Pure jealousy?

No, I think we'd improve CVS because bk came along and showed us what we 
already knew.

Bitkeeper *is* better, but as long as the ideas those improvements are based 
on don't get patented there is no reason for us not to claim them for 
ourselves.

Summa summarum:
Having a Free CVS is good.
Having a useful BitKeeper is sometimes better.
Having a Free CVS with all the features of BK would be best.


- - Svein Ove Aas
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/GG4H9OlFkai3rMARAkt/AKCdvO7UCiK2AdBKZg0sSoXghmW6vgCfedcB
zKSd79Dwa/ZPwijYMtR3lO0=
=Xuj7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----