From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270360AbTGRTyA (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:54:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270319AbTGRTwH (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:52:07 -0400 Received: from nat-pool-bos.redhat.com ([66.187.230.200]:20965 "EHLO chimarrao.boston.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270360AbTGRTvx (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jul 2003 15:51:53 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:06:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Rik van Riel X-X-Sender: riel@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com To: Richard Stallman cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Bitkeeper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Richard Stallman wrote: > I think it would be appropriate at this point to write a free client > that talks with Bitkeeper, Maybe. I'll leave that decision to whomever decides to invest his time and/or money in implementing such software. > and for Linux developers to start switching to that from Bitkeeper. That would be a bit premature. I certainly wouldn't switch to a piece of software that doesn't exist yet. ;) To put it more bluntly: free software would have to implement a very significant amount of Bitkeeper's functionality before I would ever consider switching to it. At the moment there simply is no equivalent free alternative to Bitkeeper, so there's nothing to switch to. Once such an alternative exists we could continue this debate. kind regards, Rik -- Great minds drink alike.