From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S271814AbTGRUvm (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:51:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S271824AbTGRUvl (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:51:41 -0400 Received: from [213.39.233.138] ([213.39.233.138]:11225 "EHLO wohnheim.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S271814AbTGRUva (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:51:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 23:06:01 +0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Richard Stallman Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper Message-ID: <20030718210601.GA29771@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 18 July 2003 15:51:36 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client > that talks with Bitkeeper, and for Linux developers to start switching > to that from Bitkeeper. At that point, McVoy will face a hard choice: > if he carries out these threats, he risks alienating the community > that he hopes will market Bitkeeper for him. I've told other people before and I'll tell you again: Please, pretty please, leave linux-kernel for discussions about the linux kernel and leave the bitkeeper flames for those that enjoy electronic pyrotechnic. Apart from that: Larry is right. Noone cared about crappy ol' cvs until bk came alone and showed what everyone already knew. If you didn't have to improve cvs back then, it is still as good as it was, so thy improve it now? Pure jealousy? Jörn -- The cost of changing business rules is much more expensive for software than for a secretaty. -- unknown