--- Adam K Kirchhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Can we please end this discussion about the BK license now? Or at least > take it off list? > > As for BitKeeper vs CVS (for the DRI), this is what it breaks down to: > > 1) The BK license possibly forbids at least one DRI developer from using > the free version of BK.
Larry McV says there is some kind of deal with IBM for using BK, after all IBM is using BK to work on the kernel. Ian just needs to use internal channels to find out what the deal is. The BK people also maintain a fast, free host for BK based projects. This is why I brought it up in the first place. BK said they would be happy to host DRI. I have also had a lot of experience with BK over the last year while working on the kernel and I have found BK features to be miles ahead of CVS. BK and it's hosting solution at bkbits.net have shown that they can perform by hosting the 2.4/2.5 kernel projects. I just sent Larry an email asking if he can rig up something to create an automated anon-CVS mirror of bk projects hosted at bkbits. I haven't heard back yet. I also wish Michel D would give BK a try before dismissing it on religious grounds. I was initially against BK for the same reasons but after seeing what a good tool it was I got over my moral objections. It really is way, way better than CVS. ===== Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
