On Saturday, 23 July 2016 at 19:31:13 +0200, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org> writes: >> I was in the process of preparing a port of bitkeeper and I found this: >> >> https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper >> >> "The BitKeeper history needs to be written up but the short version is >> that it happened because Larry wanted to help Linux not turn into a >> bunch of splintered factions like 386BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, >> DragonFlyBSD, etc. He saw that the problem was one of tooling. ..." > > This may be poorly written, but what they're trying to say is that there > was a serious risk of someone forking Linux solely because they were > tired of the Linus bottleneck, and a DVCS would help avoid that. That's > not particularly shocking.
I'm left wondering about the accuracy of the statement, though. I didn't think that this was the reason lm wrote Bitkeeper. I contacted him, but he wasn't much help. > Here's a real gem, though: "They stayed in it for three more years > before moving to Git because BitKeeper wasn't open source." Because > clearly, McVoy throwing a hissy fit and revoking their license had > nothing to do with it. I think this is a nice way of glossing over the ugly facts. I don't see that it's wrong. Greg -- Sent from my desktop computer. Finger g...@freebsd.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
