d.c wrote:
El Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:34:23 -0500 (EST),
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
BK already feeds patches out at the head, surely if it's as powerful as
you think, it could feed a free SCM too for your non-bk friends in the
community.
Who cares, really?
1) Linux was never supposed to hav
On Mon, 2005-02-21 at 20:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> CVS was pretty good at keeping files sane, but I'll go for a solution that
> completely sidesteps said problem any day.
One way to get the benefits of both worlds would be to keep an
additional history of changes (in whatever form) that allow
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005, David Roundy wrote:
I just scanned the comparison of various source-code management
schemes at
http://zooko.com/revision_control_quick_ref.html
and found myself wishing for a similar review of bk (which was
excluded, not being open-source).
Would you (or anyone else) be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:53:06PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
[...]
> > AFIK all other SCM except arch and darcs always modify the repo, I never
> > heard complains about it, as long as incremental backups are possible
> > and they definitely are possible.
> Well, a
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 04:53:06PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Miles,
>
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:39:05PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > Yeah, the basic way arch organizes its repository seems _far_ more sane
> > than the crazy way CVS (or BK) does, for a variety of reasons[*]. No
>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 07:41:54AM -0500, David Roundy wrote:
> The catch is that then we'd have to implement a smart server to keep users
> from having to download the entire history with each update. That's not a
> fundamentally hard issue, but it would definitely degrade darcs' ease of
> use,
Hello Miles,
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 02:39:05PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Yeah, the basic way arch organizes its repository seems _far_ more sane
> than the crazy way CVS (or BK) does, for a variety of reasons[*]. No
> doubt there are certain usage patterns which stress it, but I think it
> mak
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
It's not too bad as you just hardlink most of the trees to their parent.
Yes, and disk space is cheap.
I think there is a setting to have them checked out for editing automatically.
Yes there is, plus most decent editors are SCCS-aware and will prompt
for a checkout when you
On Saturday 19 February 2005 12:53 pm, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Wouldn't using the CVS format help an order of magnitude here? With
> CVS/SCCS format you can extract all the patchsets that affected a single
> file in a extremely efficient manner, memory utilization will be
> extremely low too (lik
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 06:53:48PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:15:02PM -0500, David Roundy wrote:
> > The linux-2.5 tree right now (I'm re-doing the conversion, and am up to
> > October of last year, so far) is at 141M, if you don't count the pristine
> > cache or wo
On Monday 21 February 2005 00:43, Miles Bader wrote:
> "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The "cost" of using BK seems to be primarily more theoretical, and
> > ideological, than real.
>
> I've never used BK (not allowed to), but some things I've read about it
> sound quite annoying.
"Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The "cost" of using BK seems to be primarily more theoretical, and
> ideological, than real.
I've never used BK (not allowed to), but some things I've read about it
sound quite annoying. For instance:
* Every source tree contains your entire reposit
Dustin Sallings writes:
> but the nicest thing about arch is that a given commit is immutable.
> There are no tools to modify it. This is also why the crypto
> signature stuff was so easy to fit in.
>
> RCS and SCCS storage throws away most of those features.
Yeah, the basic way arch organizes i
Hi,
David Roundy, creator of darcs, wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 05:42:13PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > I read in the webpage of the darcs kernel repository that they had
> > to add RAM serveral times to avoid running out of memory. They
> > needed more than 1G IIRC, and that was enoug
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 12:15:02PM -0500, David Roundy wrote:
> The linux-2.5 tree right now (I'm re-doing the conversion, and am up to
> October of last year, so far) is at 141M, if you don't count the pristine
> cache or working directory. That's already compressed, so you don't get
> any extra
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 05:42:13PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> But anyway the only thing I care about is that you import all dozen
> thousands changesets of the 2.5 kernel into it, and you show it's
> manageable with <1G of ram and that the backup size is not very far from
> the 75M of CVS.
T
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 04:10:18AM -0500, Patrick McFarland wrote:
> In the case of darcs, RCS/SCCS works exactly opposite of how darcs does. By
> using it's super magical method, it represents how code is written and how it
> changes (patch theory at its best). You can clearly see the direction
On Sat, February 19, 2005 4:10 am, Patrick McFarland said:
> On Friday 18 February 2005 07:50 am, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Erik Bågfors wrote:
>> > RCS/SCCS format doesn't make much sence for a changeset oriented SCM.
>>
>> The advantage it will provide i
On Friday 18 February 2005 07:50 am, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> > RCS/SCCS format doesn't make much sence for a changeset oriented SCM.
>
> The advantage it will provide is that it'll be compact and a backup will
> compress at best too.
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:18:19 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:34:47PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:45:55 +0100
> > > > "d
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that it be opened up to the public :o)
> Just that the flow of information wouldn't all have to originate in bk to
> make it into head (ie. bk could pull changes from head too).
No problem. bk can happily import patches, w
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:18:19 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:34:47PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, David S. Miller wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:45:55 +0100
> > > "d.c" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2) And mo
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:34:47PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, David S. Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:45:55 +0100
> > "d.c" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 2) And more important, *nobody* works against "linus' bk head".
> >
> > I do, %100 exclusively, f
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:45:55 +0100
> "d.c" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2) And more important, *nobody* works against "linus' bk head".
>
> I do, %100 exclusively, for all the networking and sparc
> development.
>
> I never work against the -mm t
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 21:45:55 +0100
"d.c" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2) And more important, *nobody* works against "linus' bk head".
I do, %100 exclusively, for all the networking and sparc
development.
I never work against the -mm tree.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
El Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:34:23 -0500 (EST),
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> BK already feeds patches out at the head, surely if it's as powerful as
> you think, it could feed a free SCM too for your non-bk friends in the
> community.
Who cares, really?
1) Linux was never supposed to have a
On Fri, February 18, 2005 2:49 pm, Dmitry Torokhov said:
> You from cvs you can import into other SCM of your choise.
This isn't true unfortunately, a lot of information is lost in cvs. file
deletes, renames etc.. Plus, the implementation from Bitkeeper is
lacking, (eg. combining many changes
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:31:20 -0500 (EST), Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, February 18, 2005 2:26 pm, Dmitry Torokhov said:
>
> > What is bk2cvs gateway that is maintained by Larry then? Just call it
> > your "head" that Linus feeds from his BK repository and you are all
> > set.
> >
> >
> "Sean" == Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sean> Bitkeeper isn't motivated to raise the bar in terms of
Sean> implementation, nor is cvs the best choice in terms of which
Sean> free tool to use. Once a free SCM is actually used at the head,
Sean> there are opportunities to implement updati
On Fri, February 18, 2005 2:26 pm, Dmitry Torokhov said:
> What is bk2cvs gateway that is maintained by Larry then? Just call it
> your "head" that Linus feeds from his BK repository and you are all
> set.
>
> I can see that Roman and Stellian want something different, but we
> alerady have what
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:34:23 -0500 (EST), Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, February 18, 2005 11:27 am, Theodore Ts'o said:
>
> > If you truly believe that BK would be able to add the value that it
> > does to the kernel development process by using some other SCM as the
> > master SCM, wi
On Fri, February 18, 2005 11:27 am, Theodore Ts'o said:
> If you truly believe that BK would be able to add the value that it
> does to the kernel development process by using some other SCM as the
> master SCM, with BK being "underneath", as you proposed earlier, then
> you do not understand why
On Feb 18, 2005, at 1:09, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
darcs scares me a bit because it's in haskell, I don't believe very
much
in functional languages for compute intensive stuff, ram utilization
It doesn't sound like you've programmed in functional languages all
that much. While I don't have any p
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:52:20AM -0500, Sean wrote:
> There are ways that the tools could coexist and work together better than
> they do today. If people would stop acting like BK was in jeopardy of
> being taken away from them and realize that others just want the ability
> to use their tools o
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 12:53:09PM +0100, Erik Bågfors wrote:
> RCS/SCCS format doesn't make much sence for a changeset oriented SCM.
The advantage it will provide is that it'll be compact and a backup will
compress at best too. Small compressed tarballs compress very badly
instead, it wouldn't be
On Friday 18 February 2005 02:26, Sean wrote:
> On Thu, February 17, 2005 11:00 pm, Theodore Ts'o said:
>
> > If you think that, you truly do not understand the value of BK, and
> > why Linus chose it.
>
> Hey Ted,
>
> No, I just disagree that it was an absolute requirement or worth its cost
> t
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 10:09:00 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> > small to medium sized ones). Last I checked, Arch was still too slow in
> > some areas, though that might have changed in recent months. Also, many
>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 10:09:00AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> darcs scares me a bit because it's in haskell, I don't believe very much
> in functional languages for compute intensive stuff, ram utilization
> skyrockets sometime (I wouldn't like to need >1G of ram to manage the
> tree).
AFAIC
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> small to medium sized ones). Last I checked, Arch was still too slow in
> some areas, though that might have changed in recent months. Also, many
IMHO someone needs to rewrite ARCH using the RCS or SCCS format for the
backend and
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:03:45AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> were employed by bitmover, or signed an NDA to look at the code. But
> just the act of using it is ridicules. Can you see Ford Motors telling
> someone that you can't go work for GM if you drive a Ford?
Your point makes sense to me
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 12:05:44PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> That's not how others are reading it and when we requested clarification
> from the legal firm we use for contracts (Fenwick&West if you care) they
> said that it could well be interpreted that if you use BK you are giving
> up your rig
On Thu, February 17, 2005 8:42 pm, Horst von Brand said:
> Linus clearly considered not just his /own/ workflow, but the workflow
> for the /whole/ kernel development community. In fact, BK was designed
Well, the /whole/ community isn't yet included, that's what we're talking
about.
> around the
On Thu, February 17, 2005 11:00 pm, Theodore Ts'o said:
> If you think that, you truly do not understand the value of BK, and
> why Linus chose it.
Hey Ted,
No, I just disagree that it was an absolute requirement or worth its cost
that so many want to completely discount. Andrew has pretty muc
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, February 17, 2005 3:52 pm, Horst von Brand said:
[...]
> > "Best tool for the job" certainly includes minutiae like "benefits" and
> > "price".
> Thank you, that's my point. It's not just about the geeky microscopic
> technical details.
Linus clearly
Clemens Schwaighofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 02/17/2005 01:57 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > Compare the number of developers, the number of overlapping
> > simultaneous development trees, and the number of patches that touch
> > overlapping files, and you'll begin to start to appreciate the
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/18/2005 01:00 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:32:04PM -0500, Sean wrote:
>
>>No. It's about recognizing the needs of more people than just the few at
>>the top. Besides, with a free tool at the Head, bk could continue to
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:32:04PM -0500, Sean wrote:
> No. It's about recognizing the needs of more people than just the few at
> the top. Besides, with a free tool at the Head, bk could continue to be
> used underneath by Linus and anyone else.
If you think that, you truly do not understand
On Thu, February 17, 2005 9:24 pm, Tupshin Harper said:
Hi Tupshin,
> Speaking as somebody that uses Darcs evey day, my opinion is that the
> future of OSS SCM will be something like arch or darcs but that neither
> are ready for projects the size of the linux kernel yet. Darcs is
> definitely wa
Patrick McFarland wrote:
On Sunday 13 February 2005 09:08 pm, Larry McVoy wrote:
Something that unintentionally started a flamewar.
Well, we just went through another round of 'BK sucks' and 'BK sucks, we need
to switch to something else'.
Sans the flamewar, are there any options? CVS and
On Sunday 13 February 2005 09:08 pm, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Something that unintentionally started a flamewar.
Well, we just went through another round of 'BK sucks' and 'BK sucks, we need
to switch to something else'.
Sans the flamewar, are there any options? CVS and SVN are out because they do
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/17/2005 07:27 PM, Sean wrote:
> On Thu, February 17, 2005 4:27 am, Roland Kuhn said:
>
>
>>The difference comes after the merge. Suppose Andrew didn't push
>>everything to Linus. Then new patches come in, both trees change. In
>>this situation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/17/2005 01:57 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Compare the number of developers, the number of overlapping
> simultaneous development trees, and the number of patches that touch
> overlapping files, and you'll begin to start to appreciate the
> differ
On Thu, February 17, 2005 6:54 pm, Lee Revell said:
> Ed did not say it was a choice between BK and nothing. He said "Linus
> has tried other SCMs. They did not suffice." Did you even read his
> comment?
The point you missed is that it's not an honest comparison to look at the
post BK/ pre BK
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 18:32 -0500, Sean wrote:
> On Thu, February 17, 2005 6:25 pm, Ed Tomlinson said:
> > Linus has tried other SCMs. They did not suffice. I remember the preBK
> > days, when you had to post a patch half a dozen time to get it merged.
> > Patches were being missed left right an
On Thu, February 17, 2005 6:25 pm, Ed Tomlinson said:
>> Yes, I do remember that post. But i'm not arguing from an ideological
>> basis; i'm arguing on practical grounds that the price of using BK is
>> too
>> high for its supposed benefits. I've not seen anyone else make that
>
> Huh? This ide
On Thursday 17 February 2005 11:58, Sean wrote:
> On Thu, February 17, 2005 11:55 am, Chris Friesen said:
>
> > If you look at the archives, there have been a *lot* of people saying
> > very much the same thing as you. I suspect people are getting tired of
> > giving the same responses all the ti
* David Weinehall ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> BTW: Wishlist request. Would you consider adding -p (--show-c-function)
> to the set of flags used for the diffs created by BitKeeper?
It's already there.
thanks,
-chris
--
Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net
On Thu, February 17, 2005 3:52 pm, Horst von Brand said:
> "Best tool for the job" certainly includes minutiae like "benefits" and
> "price".
Thank you, that's my point. It's not just about the geeky microscopic
technical details.
Sean
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, February 17, 2005 11:55 am, Chris Friesen said:
> > If you look at the archives, there have been a *lot* of people saying
> > very much the same thing as you. I suspect people are getting tired of
> > giving the same responses all the time.
> >
> > Here i
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 09:12:19AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >So how would you suggest that we resolve it? The protection we need is
> > >that people don't get to
> > >
> > > - use BK
> > > - stop using BK so they can go work on another system
> > > - start using BK again
> > > - stop
On Thu, February 17, 2005 11:55 am, Chris Friesen said:
> If you look at the archives, there have been a *lot* of people saying
> very much the same thing as you. I suspect people are getting tired of
> giving the same responses all the time.
>
> Here is what Linus had to say about it a while bac
Sean wrote:
Your cookie cutter response, proves you didn't really absorb the content
of my message. Please reread; there was no "bitching" at all.
If you look at the archives, there have been a *lot* of people saying
very much the same thing as you. I suspect people are getting tired of
giving
On Thu, February 17, 2005 11:34 am, Lee Revell said:
> If you don't like it you are free to write a better SCM that is free
> software. I am sure if you brought Linus a free software SCM that's as
> good as BK he would use it. Bitching about it on LKML will not get you
> any closer to having sai
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 01:49 -0500, Sean wrote:
> The affects of many top level folks using a non free system is felt all
> the way down the food-chain. If the top tier would agree to use a free
> SCM system then we could build bridges and offer the data in the preferred
> format to _everyone_ (ar
* Geert Uytterhoeven:
>> Easy, start working for OSDL, then start hacking arch or
>> whatever. Puff, you are his coworker, you are competing with Larry,
>> Linus license goes away.
>
> I don't know whether the kernel hackers that work for IBM use the
> `free' version of BK or not, but if they do,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 10:46:41AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> I don't know whether the kernel hackers that work for IBM use the `free'
> version of BK or not, but if they do, s/OSDL/IBM/ and s/arch/ClearCase/ and
> there's a problem...
No, there's not a problem.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:36:03PM +0100, Citizen Number 52642 wrote:
> > > Easy, start working for OSDL, then start hacking arch or
> > > whatever. Puff, you are his coworker, you are competing with Larry,
> > > Linus license goes away.
> >
> > I don't know whether the kernel hackers that work fo
Hi!
> > Easy, start working for OSDL, then start hacking arch or
> > whatever. Puff, you are his coworker, you are competing with Larry,
> > Linus license goes away.
>
> I don't know whether the kernel hackers that work for IBM use the `free'
> version of BK or not, but if they do, s/OSDL/IBM/ an
On Thu, February 17, 2005 4:27 am, Roland Kuhn said:
> The difference comes after the merge. Suppose Andrew didn't push
> everything to Linus. Then new patches come in, both trees change. In
> this situation it is very time consuming with subversion to work out
> the changes which still have to go
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > >> if they really need the more powerful features. Or we could donate
> > >> some on a case by case basis.
> > >>
> > >> If the hackers who are using BK can reach agreement that it would be
> > >> better if the BK they had didn't move forward unless th
Hi Clemens!
On Feb 17, 2005, at 9:09 AM, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/17/2005 04:55 PM, Roland Kuhn wrote:
That said, it would of course be possible to improve the internal
workflow of our emperor penguin if he used subversion, but the
collaboratio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/17/2005 04:55 PM, Roland Kuhn wrote:
> That said, it would of course be possible to improve the internal
> workflow of our emperor penguin if he used subversion, but the
> collaboration with others could not benefit the way it does with a
> chan
Hi Clemens!
On Feb 17, 2005, at 1:11 AM, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
first. what kind of advantages does bk have over other svn? Seriously.
If Apache can use it, and gcc might use it (again two very large
projects), what makes linux so differetnt that it can't.
And I don't want _anything_ from Larr
On Thu, February 17, 2005 1:22 am, d.c said:
> Do like them, ignore BK and continue using patch & diff. BK is just a
> option, It doesn't stops you from developing in the linux kernel, I
> can't understand why people cares so much about BK.
The affects of many top level folks using a non free sy
El Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:57:55 -0500 (EST),
"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Even today, some top developers do not use BK and manage to get along
Do like them, ignore BK and continue using patch & diff. BK is just a option,
It
doesn't stops you from developing in the linux kernel, I can't
On Wed, February 16, 2005 11:57 pm, Theodore Ts'o said:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 09:11:45AM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
>>
>> first. what kind of advantages does bk have over other svn? Seriously.
>> If Apache can use it, and gcc might use it (again two very large
>> projects), what makes l
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 09:11:45AM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
>
> first. what kind of advantages does bk have over other svn? Seriously.
> If Apache can use it, and gcc might use it (again two very large
> projects), what makes linux so differetnt that it can't.
Compare the number of deve
On Feb 16, 2005, Pavel Machek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I want to pay the fee for Linus and Alan.
>> I'd like to pay the fee to have Linus' license to use BK revoked. But
>> I probably can't afford it, oh well :-)
> Easy, start working for OSDL, then start hacking arch or
> whatever. Puff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/17/2005 12:39 AM, d.c wrote:
> El Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:45:27 +0900,
> Clemens Schwaighofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
>
>>than mature VCS. Apache group is switching to it, gcc people are
>>strongly thinking about it, and those two are _huge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/17/2005 12:43 AM, Olivier Galibert wrote:
>>Perhaps its about time, that linux also switches.
>
>
> Think what you want of Larry, but SVN is nowhere near BK is term of
> capabilities (and neither is arch for he matter). It's only better
> com
Hi!
> >> if they really need the more powerful features. Or we could donate
> >> some on a case by case basis.
> >>
> >> If the hackers who are using BK can reach agreement that it would be
> >> better if the BK they had didn't move forward unless they got commercial
> >> seats then we could sta
Hi!
> Those licenses don't care if you are competing with them or not, they
> do a blanket do-not-reverse-engineer no matter who you are. We
> tried
Your license is way worse than standard do-not-reverse-engineer. Put
standard do-not-reverse-engineer there and you'll see the screams
going down..
On Po 14-02-05 08:00:27, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 10:03:45AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Can you see Ford Motors telling
> > someone that you can't go work for GM if you drive a Ford?
>
> You paid for the Ford. Suppose Ford offered to give you the car but
> said if you ta
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 03:30:47PM -0600, Tom Felker wrote:
> I really think the fewer restrictions you put on BK's use, the less likely it
> will be copied. When the open source community copies something, it's not
> out
> of a desire to screw somebody over. It's because they had an itch, a
On Wed, February 16, 2005 10:43 am, Olivier Galibert said:
> Think what you want of Larry, but SVN is nowhere near BK is term of
> capabilities (and neither is arch for he matter). It's only better
> compared to cvs, and then not by that much.
>
> SCM is hard and not sexy, I'm afraid.
This has no
El Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:45:27 +0900,
Clemens Schwaighofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> than mature VCS. Apache group is switching to it, gcc people are
> strongly thinking about it, and those two are _huge_ projects with tons
> of developers, patches, trunks, etc.
and all of them work today
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 06:45:27PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/15/2005 09:19 PM, kernel wrote:
>
> > Just catching up on this thread. I guess I'm ultimately surprised that
> > the developers here don't create a system *they* like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Catalin Marinas wrote:
| Clemens Schwaighofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|>On 02/15/2005 09:19 PM, kernel wrote:
|>
|>>With all of the complaining about BK you'd think there'd be an equal
|>>alternative.
|>
|>there is no need for that. There is alread
Clemens Schwaighofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 02/15/2005 09:19 PM, kernel wrote:
>> With all of the complaining about BK you'd think there'd be an equal
>> alternative.
>
> there is no need for that. There is already one. Subversion is a more
> than mature VCS. Apache group is switching to i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
(BHash: SHA1
(B
(BOn 02/15/2005 09:19 PM, kernel wrote:
(B
(B> Just catching up on this thread. I guess I'm ultimately surprised that
(B> the developers here don't create a system *they* like with *their*
(B> knowledge and skillsets.
(B>
(B> With all
Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> There'd be BK/Pro - a price list on the web for individual users might
> be very helpful though. It won't be used very often but simplify the
> decision process a bit.
Yes, that would be an option, I'd rather spend money than limit
my freedom. I'd n
> > I want to pay the fee for Linus and Alan.
>
> I'd like to pay the fee to have Linus' license to use BK revoked. But
> I probably can't afford it, oh well :-)
Just write an SCM file system for the kernel and submit it to Linus.
As to buying me a license, don't bother, and besides who knows w
On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 04:03:43PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> And how does the CVS gateway not provide this today?
The CVS gateway does not reach the rest of bkbits.net. For instance
the ipw2200 tree since they miss some of the files in their tarball
distribution.
> And long ago I offered what
Alexandre Oliva writes:
>They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose.
As far as I understand it, there are only non-free licences for
Bitkeeper. For one you pay with money, for the other with freedom.
While I am posting in this thread, I have a few questions to Larry
McVo
On Feb 15, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> For those who don't know, bk changes -v is output in time sorted
> order of changesets with the changeset comments then each file's
> comments like the output below.
> as Roman/Pavel/et al have pointed out sometimes the commits in the
> CV
On Feb 15, 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry McVoy) wrote:
> The people we spoke with were far more interested in the ability to
> move people onto BK when they needed to.
They can always pay for the non-free license to get that, I suppose.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~
On Feb 14, 2005, Gerold Jury <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> if they really need the more powerful features. Or we could donate
>> some on a case by case basis.
>>
>> If the hackers who are using BK can reach agreement that it would be
>> better if the BK they had didn't move forward unless they g
linux-os wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, kernel wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 13:56, Larry McVoy wrote:
All we are trying to do is
1. Provide the open source community with a useful tool.
2. Prevent that from turning into the open source community
creating a clone of our tool.
lol
I a
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:46:04 +, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 19:54:14 +0100, Juergen Stuber wrote:
>
>> g BK, I can immediately start working on another SCM
>> but I can't go back to BK immediately
>
> IMHO, it should be the other way around, and more like two years.
Hmm,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, kernel wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 13:56, Larry McVoy wrote:
All we are trying to do is
1. Provide the open source community with a useful tool.
2. Prevent that from turning into the open source community
creating a clone of our tool.
lol
I agree that this s
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
