Subject: bitkeeper, latest sources
From: R Shapiro (reshapiro@mediaone.net)
Date: Tue Dec 19 2000 - 08:40:01 MST
Samuel Rydh <samuel@ibrium.se> writes:
> Well, I think bitkeeper has some nice features compared to
> CVS. Also, since BK is used for the ppc kernel quite a few
> developers are familiar with it already.
I'm not religious about Open Source, but I do think it should be
supported for internal development of linux. Commercial software is
fine, I just don't want to see it used in this kind of context. It
just doesn't seem like it's in the spirit of gnu/linux not to use Open
Source software here.
Out of curiosity, what do you need that cvs doesn't provide? We use
cvs in-house at bbn for both small and large projects and it's always
been more than sufficient. It also work nicely with ssh for remote
access.
> But I agree there should
> be a way to obtain the latest snapshot without using BK. When I get
> some time to spare, I'll add rsync access.
Thanks. Rsync is a minor nuisance for anyone with a tight firewall
(which probably means anyone on a cable-modem or dsl connection),
since by default it wants to use a privileged port. But for this
purpose it's definitely a better choice than bk (or even cvs) imo, and
not only because of the Open Source question.
If you can arrange to make automatic daily tarball snapshots, eg with
cron, and keep the current snapshot in a place that's accessible via
ftp or http, that would be even better than rsync.
In the meantime, if there's a regular patch file which includes just
the keycode fixes, can you post it?
Btw, once I got the sources using bk (and before I removed all traces
of bk from my system), I noticed that the daylight savings time patch
wasn't included. Neither was the little patch for compiling under
2.2.18. Will these be in the next official release?
-- reshapiro@mediaone.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Tue Dec 19 2000 - 08:40:08 MST