On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote: > A significant number of devs and users would be fairly likely to depart > if we were relying on bitkeeper. The license terms are _highly_ > authoritarian and controversial. I refuse to deal with the mess (and > nasty PR) it would leave, personally. I'm suggesting BK only for keeping the kernel trees managable. Users will not see them in any form as they will only ever be downloading tarballs/patches from the gentoo mirrors.
The upstream linux kernel itself is already in BK, so the point of users caring about something coming from BK isn't really valid. If the developers working on the kernel have no objections to trying BK, it could at least be given a chance for testing. The only really nasty license terms are 3.d. and 3.e. (which are basically that you can't develop a competitor to BK and use BK). -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
