From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261441AbVBRSgt (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:36:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261436AbVBRSgt (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:36:49 -0500 Received: from simmts12.bellnexxia.net ([206.47.199.141]:5819 "EHLO simmts12-srv.bellnexxia.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261433AbVBRSgq (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:36:46 -0500 Message-ID: <4075.10.10.10.24.1108751663.squirrel@linux1> In-Reply-To: <20050218162729.GA5839@thunk.org> References: <4912.10.10.10.24.1108675441.squirrel@linux1> <200502180142.j1I1gJXC007648@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <1451.10.10.10.24.1108713140.squirrel@linux1> <20050218162729.GA5839@thunk.org> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:34:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [BK] upgrade will be needed From: "Sean" To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: "Horst von Brand" , "Chris Friesen" , "d.c" , cs@tequila.co.jp, galibert@pobox.com, kernel@crazytrain.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-7 X-Mailer: SquirrelMail/1.4.3a-7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, February 18, 2005 11:27 am, Theodore Ts'o said: > If you truly believe that BK would be able to add the value that it > does to the kernel development process by using some other SCM as the > master SCM, with BK being "underneath", as you proposed earlier, then > you do not understand why BK is fundamentally better than the current > open source SCM systems that are out there. BK already feeds patches out at the head, surely if it's as powerful as you think, it could feed a free SCM too for your non-bk friends in the community. > And people *can* use the tools of their choice today. They can use > CVS, and diff+patch, and suffer with all of the limitations that those > tools have today. And for people who are doing stuff around the > periphery, quilt is often really the best tool for them. The situation could be improved for these other tools if there wasn't so much BK zealotry from those that use it. > If it's about the whole ***kernel*** development community, then it's > pretty clear that the current system works quite well. All of the > complaints have been coming primarily from SCM hackers, it seems, and > not people who truly need the power of more powerful than downloading > the bk snapshots, using the CVS export tree, and in the case where > they need to look at the changes in a single changeset bkbits.net. There's no technical reason for this limitation. > The "cost" of using BK seems to be primarily more theoretical, and > ideological, than real. It's always seems to be about someone > kvetching that they want to use SVN and get finely grained changsets > through SVN, and they can't. But how often does that happen, and > what's so painful of getting the finely grained changeset through > bkbits.net? Not very. So at the end of the day, it finally boils > down to being all about ideology, doesn't it? No. It's just that the cost isn't being paid by you, so you don't care. Cheers, Sean.