On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:49:27PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > 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. >
Users don't have to see the mainline kernel in BK, either, but there's still a BK flamewar there every two months or so. > 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. Sure it is. Check the lkml archives. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
