Re: Warning to Debian Developers regarding BitKeeper
On Sun, Oct 06, 2002 at 02:16:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Colin" == Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Colin> Please, revision control system advocacy is not relevant here!
> Colin> BitKeeper is relevant because the Linux kernel is managed
> Colin> using it, and you'll have to do a lot more than make
> Colin> suggestions - and do it elsewhere, too - to change
> Colin> that. There's no point debating it here.
> I am not advocating any revision control system here -- but we
> can't really advocate BitKeeper, since we do not have the license to
> distribute it, or even use it as a project, since we do have official
> products that contain competitive software, no?
Of course we can't. There's just no point saying "foo is better" here,
since we all know that there's one big obvious reason why people end up
having to use BitKeeper and it's not going to change due to a thread on
debian-devel. For the purposes of whether Debian developers can use
BitKeeper for kernel development, the existence of good free systems is
unfortunately a complete tangent.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]