On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:36:35PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Asfand Yar Qazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm surprised nobody considered GNU Arch > > (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) to replace BitKeeper - it was > > probably started in direct response to the Linux Kernel using a > > non-free tool. > > > > I must say I haven't used it, but from reviews and comparisons I've > > read, it seems to be a good tool. > > I agree (I use it) -- but of course it has its own issues. For instance > it has a _lot_ less attention payed to optimization than one might wish > (judging from "git", this is very important to Linus :-). The concept > of "archives" and their associated namespace offer some nice advantages, > but is a very different model than BK uses, and I presume sticking with > the familiar and simple BK model was attractive.
You can get somebody to be doing some work with bitkeeper within a few minutes. Arch has a much longer getting started phase. Ralf - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
