In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Momjian) wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reinoud van Leeuwen) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
>> >> Why? I understood that using BitKeeper for free for Open Source proj
Tom Lane wrote:
> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reinoud van Leeuwen) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> >> Why? I understood that using BitKeeper for free for Open Source projects
> >> is allowed. (but IANAL).
>
> > Ah, but there's a problem with BK
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reinoud van Leeuwen) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
>> Why? I understood that using BitKeeper for free for Open Source projects
>> is allowed. (but IANAL).
> Ah, but there's a problem with BK _actually seen in productio
Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Reinoud van Leeuwen) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:30:09AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> > I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
>> > Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I haven't seen any particular reason why we should adopt another SCM.
Perhaps BitKeeper or SubVersion would be better for our purposes than
CVS, but are they enough better to justify the switchover costs?
BitKeeper ist not open source, so it's out of the que
