On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:11:26PM -0800, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:36:39PM -0600, Brian Jackson wrote: > > We can't really subject cvs.gentoo.org to the kind of abuse that 5 kernel > > trees would introduce. Subversion isn't an option (and I'd assume that arch, > > and others isn't either). > What about BK? > BK works much better than CVS/Subversion for kernels, and don't see any > major reasons not to use it. >
The major reason not to use it is that it would rip apart the project. A significant number of devs and users would be fairly likely to depart if we were relying on bitkeeper. The license terms are _highly_ authoritarian and controversial. I refuse to deal with the mess (and nasty PR) it would leave, personally. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
