Es gab in den letzten Tagen einen sehr langen Thread auf linux-kernel zu
Bitkeeper. Ausl�ser warein ein paar Mitglieder der Open Source society
mit einer Petition, die Linux Kernel Entwickler m�gen die Nutzung von
Bitkeeper als propriet�rer Software nicht f�rdern.
(Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers)
Ein paar Ausz�ge:
Andrew Morton
fwiw, I prefer to not use bitkeeper, for the reasons which you outline.
Jeff V. Merkey
All hail the non-profit nazis ...
Jeff Garzik:
Lets stop the fud RIGHT NOW.
Nobody is forcing anybody to use BitKeeper.
Linus still accepts GNU patches via e-mail from primary kernel
maintainers a.k.a. lieutenants, as well as "regular" kernel
developers. The pre-patches, patches, and full tarballs
continue to be posted uninterrupted, just like pre-BitKeeper.
Alexander Viro
BTW, bitkeeper doesn't solve the problems I have. Ditto for
CVS. So I use neither. FWIW, BK is closer to what I need. If
it will ever get the things I need right - I'll use it and
damned if I'll hide that.
Dave Jones
There's nothing in bk that makes my life any more difficult, and
potential for it to make it a *lot* easier. And Larry seems open
to suggestions, dispelling the "its closed commercial blah" myth
Rik van Riel
<endorsement>
I use bitkeeper because it saves me lots of time and makes
my life easier. If you don't like it, you can use something
else instead and do all the work by hand, but I prefer to
have bitkeeper do the version tracking for me.
I don't know of any product that comes close to bitkeeper,
or even of anything remotely approaching the functionality
of bitkeeper, for me there is no real alternative.
</endorsement>
David S. Miller
Probably the most amusing consequence of this "petition" is that
it has given BitKeeper a lot of extra free publicity. :-)
In fact more than I've ever given it publicly, and that is the
most ironic and hilarious part. ROFL.
Troy Benjegerdes
First, CVS is COMPLETELY inadequate for the kind of distributed,
non-centralized development that goes on for the kernel.
Bitkeeper solves some rather difficult problems that *NOTHING
ELSE SOLVES* right now. This is why I've continued to use it for
the last 2 years, even though I occasionally get annoyed that
it's not free software.
Layy McVoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> I'm a poor college student
And I have two kids on their way to college. Grow up.
Florian Weimer
Using BitKeeper might break the way security issues are
currently handled by distributors of the GNU/Linux system, due
to the open logging feature.
und als abschliessenden kommentar: wie immer Linus, der sich den
Flamewar erstmal zwei Tage angeschaut hat, bevor er sich �usserte:
Guys, calm down.
A few points:
- I certainly don't require BK use of anybody. It makes my life
simpler with some people (mainly the ones that tend to be maintainers
of subsystems and send me lots of patches), but there are many
developers who do NOT use BK, and it doesn't slow them down at all.
For example, see the FS patches from Al Viro: the only thing that BK
has resulted in as far as Al is concerned is that the changelogs are
a lot better and include his email comments.
And I also export my tree as regular patches, the way I always have
(well, the actual format changed subtly, but that's purely syntactic)
- If Larry turns to the dark side (or, as some would say, the "even
darker side" ;) we're _still_ ok. The data isn't going anywhere, he
can't close that down. We'd just have to export it into a new format.
If worst comes to worst, and nobody has fixed CVS/subversion/whatever
by then, I can even just go back to how I used to work. Nothing lost.
- If people in the open-source SCM community wake up and notice that
the current open-source SCM systems aren't cutting it, that's _good_.
But it's absolutely NOT an excuse to use them today. Sorry. I use
CVS at work, and I could never use it for Linux. I took a look at
subversion, and it doesn't even come close to what I wanted.
And I personally refuse to use inferior tools because of ideology. In
fact, I will go as far as saying that making excuses for bad tools
due to ideology is _stupid_, and people who do that think with their
gonads, not their brains.
In short: nobody requires BK of anybody else. A lot of people really
like using it, though, and it does make some things easier. Some people
aren't convinced - David Miller is trying it out, and I haven't heard
all happy sounds from him about it. Others have taken to BK like fish to
water, and you'll pry it out of their dead cold hands.
The most productive thing people could do might be to just do a BK->CVS
gateway, if you really feel like it. Or just go on and ignore the fact
that some people are using BK - you don't actually have to ever even
know.
--cut--
Wem das nicht reicht, der kann sich 104 Artikel mit vielen tausend
Zeilen selbst durchlesen.
Andreas
