Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 03:22:34PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 11, 2005, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's not Larry choosing not to have you do the work, you are self > > selecting not to do it because you won't sign the contracts. > > No. We don't want access to the

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:56:02AM -0800, none given wrote: > On Fri, February 11, 2005 11:18 am, Larry McVoy said: > >The mails have started flowing in saying "I don't agree with Alexandre > >and please don't pull the plug" so a point of clarification. We have > >no intention of shutting down

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, February 11, 2005 11:18 am, Larry McVoy said: The mails have started flowing in saying "I don't agree with Alexandre and please don't pull the plug" so a point of clarification. We have no intention of shutting down the BK free product. We are aware that there are 10's of thousands of

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: > You are also right that figuring out the merges is a pain. So what? > We never said that we'd figure out how to do all this well and then > teach you how to do it well. We're not asking for you to teach us how to do it. We're just

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 11, 2005, Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not Larry choosing not to have you do the work, you are self > selecting not to do it because you won't sign the contracts. No. We don't want access to the BK software. We want access to the data that is stored in the repository,

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> > Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire >> > to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way? >> I don't see what

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

The mails have started flowing in saying "I don't agree with Alexandre and please don't pull the plug" so a point of clarification. We have no intention of shutting down the BK free product. We are aware that there are 10's of thousands of developers in the open source world who do not agree

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:39:47 -0800 (PST), Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The bit I don't understand is that you've claimed you'd be willing to > implement the code needed to export the additional information that > Roman, myself and probably many others would like to have, if someone

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:01:46PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I don't believe his claim, and I can prove it with a dumb example. > > Consider three patches, A, J and U, such that A and U are identical, > and J is a patch that reverses them. > > You can determine the final state of the tree

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire > > to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way? > > I don't see what you've done as helping the open source community. So in your

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 10, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: > It seems like you've made up your mind that we are operating out of pure > self interest and have no desire to help you or anyone else unless we > get something out of it. In other words, we're making our decisions > based on the net

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:17:00PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > So if we knew that doing this would hurt our business, which according > you is the only thing we care about, then why would we do it? The usual > response is the marketing value we get out of it. Yes, we certainly do > get some

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 08:34:37PM +0100, d.c wrote: > El Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:22:39 +0100 (CET), > Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > > To remind you the main problem was and is still, that the kernel history > > is locked into bk. At this point I'm not really sure, whether all bk

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 08:34:37PM +0100, d.c wrote: El Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:22:39 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: To remind you the main problem was and is still, that the kernel history is locked into bk. At this point I'm not really sure, whether all bk user

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:17:00PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: So if we knew that doing this would hurt our business, which according you is the only thing we care about, then why would we do it? The usual response is the marketing value we get out of it. Yes, we certainly do get some

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 10, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: It seems like you've made up your mind that we are operating out of pure self interest and have no desire to help you or anyone else unless we get something out of it. In other words, we're making our decisions based on the net

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way? I don't see what you've done as helping the open source community. So in your mind,

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:01:46PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: I don't believe his claim, and I can prove it with a dumb example. Consider three patches, A, J and U, such that A and U are identical, and J is a patch that reverses them. You can determine the final state of the tree given

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:39:47 -0800 (PST), Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bit I don't understand is that you've claimed you'd be willing to implement the code needed to export the additional information that Roman, myself and probably many others would like to have, if someone

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

The mails have started flowing in saying I don't agree with Alexandre and please don't pull the plug so a point of clarification. We have no intention of shutting down the BK free product. We are aware that there are 10's of thousands of developers in the open source world who do not agree with

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:30:22PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: Can you offer any plausible explanation other than a good faith desire to help the open source community, albeit in a non-traditional way? I don't see what you've done

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 11, 2005, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not Larry choosing not to have you do the work, you are self selecting not to do it because you won't sign the contracts. No. We don't want access to the BK software. We want access to the data that is stored in the repository, that's

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 11, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: You are also right that figuring out the merges is a pain. So what? We never said that we'd figure out how to do all this well and then teach you how to do it well. We're not asking for you to teach us how to do it. We're just asking

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, February 11, 2005 11:18 am, Larry McVoy said: The mails have started flowing in saying I don't agree with Alexandre and please don't pull the plug so a point of clarification. We have no intention of shutting down the BK free product. We are aware that there are 10's of thousands of

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 10:56:02AM -0800, none given wrote: On Fri, February 11, 2005 11:18 am, Larry McVoy said: The mails have started flowing in saying I don't agree with Alexandre and please don't pull the plug so a point of clarification. We have no intention of shutting down the BK free

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 03:22:34PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Feb 11, 2005, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not Larry choosing not to have you do the work, you are self selecting not to do it because you won't sign the contracts. No. We don't want access to the BK

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi Alexandre, It seems like you've made up your mind that we are operating out of pure self interest and have no desire to help you or anyone else unless we get something out of it. In other words, we're making our decisions based on the net positive/negative effect on our business. Is that a

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:23:19 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:15AM -0600, Steve Lee wrote: > > > Roman, besides BK being closed source, how exactly is it lacking for > > your needs? If what it lacks is a good idea and helps many, Larry and > > crew

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

El Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:22:39 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > To remind you the main problem was and is still, that the kernel history > is locked into bk. At this point I'm not really sure, whether all bk user > realize this, as you constantly try to distract them with

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:15AM -0600, Steve Lee wrote: > Roman, besides BK being closed source, how exactly is it lacking for > your needs? If what it lacks is a good idea and helps many, Larry and > crew might be willing to add whatever it is you need. A feature I lack is 'floating

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Roman, besides BK being closed source, how exactly is it lacking for your needs? If what it lacks is a good idea and helps many, Larry and crew might be willing to add whatever it is you need. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:08:20AM -0500, James Bruce wrote: > Roman, please give up on importing 100% of the history. There's no > point arguing something if you already know what the other person's > answer will be. Larry will not change his mind under any currently > foreseeable

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

I really got bored of this thread.Can you all question your self on thing? If someone starts reading right now the sources of the linux kernel will be able to understand every aspect and part of the code??? Do you understand every aspect? Is it still "opensource" or starts to be a "closedsource"

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > This problem is nowhere near as hard as you are making it out to be > but it is hard. But it's not that bad, we do this every time we do > a CVS import, we have to intuit the changeset boundaries themselves, > which is actually harder than what you

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 9, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into >> granting you power over not only the BK history > It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 9, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into granting you power over not only the BK history It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put some

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: This problem is nowhere near as hard as you are making it out to be but it is hard. But it's not that bad, we do this every time we do a CVS import, we have to intuit the changeset boundaries themselves, which is actually harder than what you are

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

I really got bored of this thread.Can you all question your self on thing? If someone starts reading right now the sources of the linux kernel will be able to understand every aspect and part of the code??? Do you understand every aspect? Is it still opensource or starts to be a closedsource

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:08:20AM -0500, James Bruce wrote: Roman, please give up on importing 100% of the history. There's no point arguing something if you already know what the other person's answer will be. Larry will not change his mind under any currently foreseeable

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Roman, besides BK being closed source, how exactly is it lacking for your needs? If what it lacks is a good idea and helps many, Larry and crew might be willing to add whatever it is you need. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:15AM -0600, Steve Lee wrote: Roman, besides BK being closed source, how exactly is it lacking for your needs? If what it lacks is a good idea and helps many, Larry and crew might be willing to add whatever it is you need. A feature I lack is 'floating

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

El Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:22:39 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: To remind you the main problem was and is still, that the kernel history is locked into bk. At this point I'm not really sure, whether all bk user realize this, as you constantly try to distract them with

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:23:19 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 10:42:15AM -0600, Steve Lee wrote: Roman, besides BK being closed source, how exactly is it lacking for your needs? If what it lacks is a good idea and helps many, Larry and crew might be

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi Alexandre, It seems like you've made up your mind that we are operating out of pure self interest and have no desire to help you or anyone else unless we get something out of it. In other words, we're making our decisions based on the net positive/negative effect on our business. Is that a

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into > > > granting you power over not only the BK history > > It's exactly the

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Roman, please give up on importing 100% of the history. There's no point arguing something if you already know what the other person's answer will be. Larry will not change his mind under any currently foreseeable circumstances. Yes, there is "meta-data lockin" whether anyone at BitMover

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

While I agree with your overall sentiment, please compare apples to apples regarding the license. You said: Larry McVoy wrote: I don't come here every month and ask for the GPL to be removed from some driver, that's essentially what you are doing and I think pretty much everyone is sick of it.

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > [long explanation which is summarized as "it's hard"] > So doing the work is one thing, getting a result within my lifetime would > be nice too. I understand the complexity you are facing. This may be hard for you to believe but we

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: (I just sent a similiar mail in private and didn't immediately realize it didn't went to lkml, so sorry, who gets it twice.) > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:13:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > I think what people want here is the tree structure

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:22:39AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > > You know, you could change all this. Instead of complaining that we > > are somehow hurting you, which virtually 100% of the readers know is > > nonsense, you could be producing an alternative answer which is better. > > Another

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:13:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Are you saying that it is now OK to write scripts that would bit bang > on > the bkbits http interface to fetch patches/comments with the purpose > of > populating an alternate scm? Andreas tried that a while ago but you >

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:31:05 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > > Larry has said, write up a proposal for changes you want in bk. Send > > it to him for a quote. Come up with the cash and he will do the work. > > Here is a simple one:

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > Larry has said, write up a proposal for changes you want in bk. Send > it to him for a quote. Come up with the cash and he will do the work. Here is a simple one: restore the parent information in the gnupatch option as they were about a year ago

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: Larry, it's interesting how you try to distract from the main problem (which you don't mention with a single word) and instead continues to badmouth me. Let's take a look. > Short version: let's violate a license. Wrong, if I wanted to violate the

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 12:17:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > You know, you could change all this. Instead of complaining that we > > > are somehow hurting you, which virtually 100% of the readers know is

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:24:06 -0500 (EST), Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Larry turned it down with the usual "we're'll fear you if we do that" > answer although I still have problems seeing why BK would be suplented > with that info available. The SCM problem is much much more than

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 12:17:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > > You know, you could change all this. Instead of complaining that we > > are somehow hurting you, which virtually 100% of the readers know is > > nonsense, you could be producing an

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:17:48 -0500 (EST), Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > > Larry, why can't you compete only on the tool instead of claiming > > exclusive rights on the test bench as well? > >

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:30:54 EST, Nicolas Pitre said: > If I don't want to use a certain filesystem, I mount it and copy the > files over to another filesystem. What users are interested in are the > files themselves of course, and the efficiency with which the filesystem > handles those

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:17:48 -0500 (EST), Nicolas Pitre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > > Larry, why can't you compete only on the tool instead of claiming > exclusive rights on the test bench as well? Nicolas, Larry has not said he won't make the changes

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into > > granting you power over not only the BK history > > It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put some files into

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into > granting you power over not only the BK history It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put some files into a file system does the file system creator owe

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

El 09 Feb 2005 05:06:02 -0200, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into > granting you power over not only the BK history, in such a way that > anyone willing to extract all the information available from the BK > repository

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:58:22PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > Kevin Puetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > erm, svk is cool and all, but it keeps a local repository mirror (not > > necessarily full I suppose, but usually it is). So it's *much* heavier > > on the client side than normal svn. Pays

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Roman, Larry has a perfectly valid reason to call you a jerk, because > you are being one, and have been one for at least 50% of your posts > on this list over the last 2 years or more. Right this instant my > most fervent wish is for you to go get a

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Kevin Puetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If you use svk for the client side, there's >> (almost?) no overhead. >> >> Regards, Olaf. > > erm, svk is cool and all, but it keeps a local repository mirror (not > necessarily full I suppose, but usually it is). So it's *much*

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Kevin Puetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you use svk http://svk.elixus.org/ for the client side, there's (almost?) no overhead. Regards, Olaf. erm, svk is cool and all, but it keeps a local repository mirror (not necessarily full I suppose, but usually it is). So it's *much* heavier on

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Gene Heskett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roman, Larry has a perfectly valid reason to call you a jerk, because you are being one, and have been one for at least 50% of your posts on this list over the last 2 years or more. Right this instant my most fervent wish is for you to go get a job at

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:58:22PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote: Kevin Puetz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: erm, svk is cool and all, but it keeps a local repository mirror (not necessarily full I suppose, but usually it is). So it's *much* heavier on the client side than normal svn. Pays off in

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

El 09 Feb 2005 05:06:02 -0200, Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into granting you power over not only the BK history, in such a way that anyone willing to extract all the information available from the BK repository and

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into granting you power over not only the BK history It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put some files into a file system does the file system creator owe you

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into granting you power over not only the BK history It's exactly the same as a file system. If you put some files into a

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:17:48 -0500 (EST), Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: Larry, why can't you compete only on the tool instead of claiming exclusive rights on the test bench as well? Nicolas, Larry has not said he won't make the changes that

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:30:54 EST, Nicolas Pitre said: If I don't want to use a certain filesystem, I mount it and copy the files over to another filesystem. What users are interested in are the files themselves of course, and the efficiency with which the filesystem handles those files.

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:17:48 -0500 (EST), Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: Larry, why can't you compete only on the tool instead of claiming exclusive rights on the test bench as well? Nicolas, Larry

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 12:17:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: You know, you could change all this. Instead of complaining that we are somehow hurting you, which virtually 100% of the readers know is nonsense, you could be producing an alternative

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:24:06 -0500 (EST), Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry turned it down with the usual we're'll fear you if we do that answer although I still have problems seeing why BK would be suplented with that info available. The SCM problem is much much more than just a

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 12:17:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: You know, you could change all this. Instead of complaining that we are somehow hurting you, which virtually 100% of the readers know is

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: Larry, it's interesting how you try to distract from the main problem (which you don't mention with a single word) and instead continues to badmouth me. Let's take a look. Short version: let's violate a license. Wrong, if I wanted to violate the

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: Larry has said, write up a proposal for changes you want in bk. Send it to him for a quote. Come up with the cash and he will do the work. Here is a simple one: restore the parent information in the gnupatch option as they were about a year ago

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:31:05 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: Larry has said, write up a proposal for changes you want in bk. Send it to him for a quote. Come up with the cash and he will do the work. Here is a simple one: restore the

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:13:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: Are you saying that it is now OK to write scripts that would bit bang on the bkbits http interface to fetch patches/comments with the purpose of populating an alternate scm? Andreas tried that a while ago but you threatened to

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:22:39AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: You know, you could change all this. Instead of complaining that we are somehow hurting you, which virtually 100% of the readers know is nonsense, you could be producing an alternative answer which is better. Another smoke

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: (I just sent a similiar mail in private and didn't immediately realize it didn't went to lkml, so sorry, who gets it twice.) On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:13:48PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: I think what people want here is the tree structure

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 01:14:43AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: [long explanation which is summarized as it's hard] So doing the work is one thing, getting a result within my lifetime would be nice too. I understand the complexity you are facing. This may be hard for you to believe but we have

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

While I agree with your overall sentiment, please compare apples to apples regarding the license. You said: Larry McVoy wrote: I don't come here every month and ask for the GPL to be removed from some driver, that's essentially what you are doing and I think pretty much everyone is sick of it.

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Roman, please give up on importing 100% of the history. There's no point arguing something if you already know what the other person's answer will be. Larry will not change his mind under any currently foreseeable circumstances. Yes, there is meta-data lockin whether anyone at BitMover will

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Nicolas Pitre [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:06:02AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: So you've somehow managed to trick most kernel developers into granting you power over not only the BK history It's exactly the same as a file

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Feb 8, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote: > I think you are dreaming. You've gone from wanting enough information > to supposedly debug your source tree to being explicit about wanting to > recreate the entire BK history in a different system. > The answer is no, that's a clear

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Tuesday 08 February 2005 21:57, Roman Zippel wrote: >Hi, > >On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: >> Write up a proposal of what you need. Send it to Larry and ask for >> a quote. Larry will probably even help you fill in things you >> missed in the proposal. Come to an agreement on terms for

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Olaf Dietsche wrote: > Stelian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I must test this...), plus 600 MB per working copy. > > If you use svk for the client side, there's > (almost?) no overhead. > > Regards, Olaf. erm, svk is cool and all, but it keeps a local

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:47:49AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > Nice, Roman. All I need is a cooperating third party who is willing to > > give me your code under a different (albeit invalid) license. > > Short version: Bullshit. > Long

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:57:37 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > Write up a proposal of what you need. Send it to Larry and ask for a > > quote. Larry will probably even help you fill in things you missed in > > the proposal.

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > Write up a proposal of what you need. Send it to Larry and ask for a > quote. Larry will probably even help you fill in things you missed in > the proposal. Come to an agreement on terms for the proposal. Raise > the cash, send it to Larry, wait for the

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Larry McVoy wrote: > Nice, Roman. All I need is a cooperating third party who is willing to > give me your code under a different (albeit invalid) license. Short version: Bullshit. Long version: See previous mails. bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 03:35:37AM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > Larry has said he will do the work you want if you pay him. > > Usually I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I'd > prefer to know exactly, what I would

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:35:37 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > Larry has said he will do the work you want if you pay him. > > Usually I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I'd > prefer to know

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Jon Smirl wrote: > Larry has said he will do the work you want if you pay him. Usually I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I'd prefer to know exactly, what I would get for the money. But as I said by now I know enough about this that I can do

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 03:05:18 +0100 (CET), Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The current problem is more serious and I want that bk users to understand > that. A large part of kernel history is currently practically locked into > bk. bk isn't doing what I need, so naturally I'm looking for

Re: [RFC] Linux Kernel Subversion Howto

Hi, On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I don't know how many years it was before people decided to > give up on the emacs vs. vi wars, but can we please put a more hasty > end to the bk license flamewars? Many thanks, It's not really the same, if it would be just about personal

  1   2   3   >