- Original Message -
From: Adi Stav [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:20:37PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
BTW: there is a little non-free license issue with BitKeeper. From
what
I understand, the license of BitKeeper is basicaly a free license, but
requires that you
On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Oded Arbel wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Adi Stav [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:20:37PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
BTW: there is a little non-free license issue with BitKeeper. From
what
I understand, the license of BitKeeper is basicaly
Goldshmidt wrote:
Well, it seems that The Great Kernel CVS Mutiny led Linus to
BitKeeper...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/06/1341250mode=thread
I should add that by CVS I meant any decent source control system and
BitKeepter seems to fit this description
,
Shlomi Fish
Ely Levy
System group
Hebrew University
Jerusalem Israel
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:
On 6 Feb 2002, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Well, it seems that The Great Kernel CVS Mutiny led Linus to
BitKeeper...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Ely Levy wrote:
there is no kernel of any OS that I know that only one person decide
usualy there are few people and a voting involved.
designed by a comittee is *not* a compliment.
not mention that not EVERY patch goes to the that person
neither should every patch go
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, mulix wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Ely Levy wrote:
there is no kernel of any OS that I know that only one person decide
usualy there are few people and a voting involved.
designed by a comittee is *not* a compliment.
comittee?
more like crow
see other kernels as
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Ely Levy wrote:
there is no kernel of any OS that I know that only one person decide
usualy there are few people and a voting involved.
not mention that not EVERY patch goes to the that person
1. Linus's linux is just a kernel, not a complete OS (as oppsed to the
BSDs
Tzafrir Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
2. Linus has the final word on what goes into the official kernel tree.
But the kernel is distributed under the GPL, and this means that
anybody is free to fork it.
And IIRC Linus has gone on record many times encouraging forking. I am
not
Well, it seems that The Great Kernel CVS Mutiny led Linus to
BitKeeper...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/06/1341250mode=thread
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it ain't broken, it has not got enough features yet
On 6 Feb 2002, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
Well, it seems that The Great Kernel CVS Mutiny led Linus to
BitKeeper...
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/06/1341250mode=thread
I should add that by CVS I meant any decent source control system and
BitKeepter seems to fit this description
I discovered other things I don't like about the way the kernel was
maintained since the original mutiny call, but they are relatively minor
in comparison to using a source control system.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
I would like to read about those other things you dislike as it
are LKML members). I've requested
the sys-admins of vipe.technion.ac.il to arrange for me to have some
arrangement so I'll be able to read the LKML messages there, but it has
not been put forth yet.
You can check the Linux-IL archives, (in the Great Kernel CVS Mutiny
thread) and read my comments to see
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 08:33:33AM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I disagree with your claims. And by raising the flag of mutiny I do not
intend to demand them. I intend to implement a system that will make them
a reality.
This is a productive mutiny, in which people do something instead of
[/me replies against my better judgement. oh well]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I believe that the way things are done in the kernel development have to
change in many ways to make its maintainance more scalable and
straightforward. There should be:
why should its maintanence be
After writing my previous message about the subject, I have other
thoughts.
The problem, which triggered the mutiny discussions, is the fact that
Linus was not always prompt in accepting bugfix patches. So some
subsystems remained buggy (even if there was no dispute which bugfix patch
to
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, mulix wrote:
[/me replies against my better judgement. oh well]
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I believe that the way things are done in the kernel development have to
change in many ways to make its maintainance more scalable and
straightforward. There
Even though off-topic (as was the whole of this thread), I can't
stop myself to say a few things:
1. The first, and most important: I was subscribed to lkml for a few
weeks, and quickly unsubscribed. I do read every issue of
Kernel Traffic (http://kt.zork.net), since issue 1 (three years ago),
Without repeating or attaching what was said, I think that a simple approach would do
the trick.
Linux as opposed to corporation politics is an evolutionary organism were the
strongest and best survive.
There is no need for any mutiny, if Linux wasn't working well the organism would take
steps
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, Adi Stav wrote:
On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 03:23:59PM +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2002, mulix wrote:
why should its maintanence be more scalable and straightforward?
scalability is a nice buzzword, but so is quality, cohesion,
direction, which linus
I've just been to Moshe Bar's lecture, which was an excellent lecture. One
of the things that were said in the beginning is that Linus Torvalds has
become inefficient in accepting important patches made to the kernel. For
instance, Moshe said that he has cron job that sends a group of patches to
Heard about BitKeeper?
Ingo uses it, as well as other people.
Linus is actually thinking to use it once larry mcvoy will finish
implementing some features (other people who use it are RedHat, IBM among
others)
Hetz
=
To
linuxppc uses BitKeeper also.
DaveM (Sparc, Networking maintainer) uses CVS.
Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
Heard about BitKeeper?
Ingo uses it, as well as other people.
Linus is actually thinking to use it once larry mcvoy will finish
implementing some features (other people who use it are
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote about the need for a Great Kernel
CVS Mutiny and since then things never were the same...:
[... details were snipped ...]
This is a classical problem of wanting to eat a cake and have it, too.
We all want Linus to continue to lead the kernel development
[ ... Really Long Letter Snipped ... ]
Please refer to the following lecture, which talks about the engineering
of Win2K:
http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix-win2000/invitedtalks/lucovsky_html/
I spotted the link thru a post Chen made to Hackers-IL, and it also
appeared on the
24 matches
Mail list logo
