On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:20:53AM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote: > Lukas Geyer <lukas@debian.org> writes: > > [...] > > > I have not yet used arch, but if it is as good as its advocates say, > > why not set up a kernel repository? > > Arch almost certainly isn't ready yet. Attempting to set up a kernel > repository might well be useful in showing areas where performance > will be a problem. > > BitKeeper is clearly working for the kernel developers, and part of > that is presumably the nice merging tools and things that Arch simply > doesn't have. So even if there were an Arch repository, people are > quite likely not to move to it, since BitKeeper is functionally > superior, at least at present. > > [...] > Well, since the license disallows use for purposes of creating a competing source revision control system, then we should look for, anr/or ask for the list of features that were the deciding factor in using bitkeeper. -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer lindows.com hyperpoem.net | GNU/Linux software developer debian.org "No ideas but in things." - William Carlos Williams
Attachment:
pgpgyoQdILr_5.pgp
Description: PGP signature