From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S268550AbTBOIK2>; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:10:28 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S268551AbTBOIK2>; Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:10:28 -0500
Received: from [81.2.122.30] ([81.2.122.30]:4612 "EHLO darkstar.example.net")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S268550AbTBOIK2>;
	Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:10:28 -0500
From: John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com>
Message-Id: <200302150821.h1F8Lavd000281@darkstar.example.net>
Subject: BitKeeper
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 08:21:36 +0000 (GMT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

The re-occuring thread about BitKeeper, and the appropriateness of
using a closed-source tool to develop open source software is here yet
again, and I'd just like to point out a few things:

1. Linus chose to use BitKeeper, presumably because it makes his work
easier.

2. If people annoy Larry enough, he can stop providing hosting for us
at bkbits, and stop providing new BitKeeper versions.

If anybody ends up making point number 2 happen, do you think Linus is
going to be happy about it?

Regardless of your views on closed-source software, that is something
to think about.

Linux is an open source project - anybody is free to fork it and
maintain their own tree, but so far nobody has.  Quite the opposite,
infact - everybody is trying to get their patches accepted in to
Linus' tree.

If you don't like BitKeeper, why not write an alternative?

John.