On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 07:39:46PM +0300, Nadav Har'El wrote: > The only reason BitKeeper's license is a problem to the community is because > Linus decided to use it for source-control of the kernel. This issue has been > discussed to death in the Linux-Kernel mailing list. But why should you > care about that so much??? Do you have many patches you want to commit into > the kernel?? Besides, for years the Linux kernel did not use any source-control > system at all, so you can go on pretending that it still doesn't.
Just to make sure the facts are straight: - using bitkeeper for kernel development is easier, but it's by no means a prerequisite, as this paragraph seems to imply. - you can submit patches using diff & patch just fine, same as always. - several people have scripts which take the latest / daily bitkeeper checkins and export them as patches. - Linus and Marcelo publish their kernels as tarballs and patches, same as always. - Alan Cox and several other notable developers do not use bitkeeper, because of the licensing/non free issue. So the only reason to use bitkeeper for kernel hacking is that it makes yours, the developer's, life easier. If you insist on ideology rather than pragmatism, you can get along just fine with diff and patch, same as before. [full disclosure: I use bitkeeper for non work related kernel development because it's so convenient, and for nothing else because of its license]. -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ sctrace strace /bin/foo http://syscalltrack.sf.net/ Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?
msg22215/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
