Subject: Re: bitkeeper, latest sources
From: Timothy A. Seufert (tas@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 03:54:19 MST
At 10:40 AM -0500 12/19/00, R Shapiro wrote:
>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,
Then why do you hate BK? Serious question. (Below, you also use the
"gnu/linux" catchphrase, which is often a sign of buying into at
least some of Stallman's religious attitude.)
>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.
BK is not pure lily white Open Source but it's very close. I really
don't see why so many people get bugged about it.
>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.
Speed: BK is much more efficient than CVS across the Internet.
Power: BK is unquestionably more powerful and flexible. The entire
model is better (push/pull between peer repositories instead of a
single central repository). Once you have a repository on your hard
drive you can browse the complete history of the tree without going
across the network.
Suckage: CVS sucks, BK doesn't. CVS is arcane, old, outdated,
crufty, and generally a hunk of crap. The only reason everybody uses
it is that for a long time it was the essentially the only free (beer
or speech, take your pick) option. Don't mistake familiarity for
goodness.
Tim Seufert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 03:54:35 MST