Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

[Samium Gromoff]

> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:52:15PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > going to start a flame war.  So I won't.  I will note that none of the
> > solutions proposed come close to being acceptable, they all fail on NFS
> > and on SMB shares.  And they don't cascade properly as HPA has noted.
>
> FWIW arch would solve this completely too, but we need to checkout a
> coherent cvs to import the data into arch.

Okay, folks. Now i propose to go further than that.

I hope that Larry recognises that at some point the linux kernel community
_will_ switch to a free software alternative.

I think we should have a better choice than the lossy bk->cvs.

I propose we as a whole ask Larry to create a bk->arch gateway _not_ via cvs
but directly, and therefore using all the extended metadata possible.

	- this way we`ll get whole-tree changesets, file renames etc.
	- this way Larry will have a terrific argument to shut whiners.

The choice of Arch is not random, but motivated by my belief in that it is
the leading Free Software revision control effort.

If Larry wishes to give a birth to this idea, the list to contact is:

	gnu-arch-users@gnu.org

regards, Samium Gromoff

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

[Samium Gromoff]

At Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:44:54 -0500,
Jan Harkes wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:59:42PM +0300, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> > Okay, folks. Now i propose to go further than that.
> > 
> > I hope that Larry recognises that at some point the linux kernel community
> > _will_ switch to a free software alternative.
> > 
> > I think we should have a better choice than the lossy bk->cvs.
> > 
> > I propose we as a whole ask Larry to create a bk->arch gateway _not_ via cvs
> > but directly, and therefore using all the extended metadata possible.
> 
> I appreciate Arch and am actually using it for some things, and can't
> give an educated opinion on BK as I have never used it.
> 
> But this is just ridiculous.
> 
> First of all, there always serious pain in switching. Whatever free
> alternative is provided better be _a lot_ better compared to what is
> currently used. And although Arch might be more in-line with the
> political goals of many developers, frankly I don't believe Arch is
> technologically there yet.

You miss my point.

I don`t call for switching (although would like it to happen).

I call for a _better replacement for bk->cvs_.

bk->cvs loses data, which could be captured in a more sensible manner
than cvs is.
(I think that everyone agrees here that it`s not even remotely arguable)

bk->arch would regain that data back to our hands, thats what i`m proposing.
(here i presume that that data being constantly lost _is_ really useful)

> But then asking Larry to implement a gateway seems to be the plan of the
> century. Hey why doesn't Larry help out with the Arch or SVN effort
> while he's at it? How would you react if ClearCase started demanding
> that Arch/SVN/CVS developers should implement a one-directional
> gateway to their software to make it easier for people to migrate.

I decide to conveniently skip answering that part.
(That`s a suggestion to use your imagination here, really)

> Jan

regards, Samium Gromoff

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

[Samium Gromoff]

At Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:26:20 +0300,
Samium Gromoff wrote:
[snip]
> bk->arch would regain that data back to our hands, thats what i`m proposing.
> (here i presume that that data being constantly lost _is_ really useful)
		       ^^^^ should be "the"
[snip]

> regards, Samium Gromoff

Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

[Jan Harkes]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:59:42PM +0300, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> Okay, folks. Now i propose to go further than that.
> 
> I hope that Larry recognises that at some point the linux kernel community
> _will_ switch to a free software alternative.
> 
> I think we should have a better choice than the lossy bk->cvs.
> 
> I propose we as a whole ask Larry to create a bk->arch gateway _not_ via cvs
> but directly, and therefore using all the extended metadata possible.

I appreciate Arch and am actually using it for some things, and can't
give an educated opinion on BK as I have never used it.

But this is just ridiculous.

First of all, there always serious pain in switching. Whatever free
alternative is provided better be _a lot_ better compared to what is
currently used. And although Arch might be more in-line with the
political goals of many developers, frankly I don't believe Arch is
technologically there yet.

But then asking Larry to implement a gateway seems to be the plan of the
century. Hey why doesn't Larry help out with the Arch or SVN effort
while he's at it? How would you react if ClearCase started demanding
that Arch/SVN/CVS developers should implement a one-directional
gateway to their software to make it easier for people to migrate.

Jan