From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 2 6:37:58 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A18E14BE9 for ; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 06:37:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15396; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:37:42 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id PAA82701; Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:37:42 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:37:42 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund To: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven Cc: Matthew Jacob , Harlan Stenn , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bitkeeper license review Message-ID: <19991202153742.L76366@bitbox.follo.net> References: <12389.944103209@brown.pfcs.com> <19991202135757.D18855@lucifer.bart.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <19991202135757.D18855@lucifer.bart.nl>; from asmodai@bart.nl on Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:57:57PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 01:57:57PM +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote: > >On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Harlan Stenn wrote: > -On [19991202 07:00], Matthew Jacob (mjacob@feral.com) wrote: > > >> Anybody here have the time/inclination/ability to review a *draft* of the > >> proposed BitKeeper license to see if it would be acceptable for use by > >> FreeBSD? > > >Since Larry's a neighbor and buddy of mine, I can look at it, but not > >until next week (poke me if to do so if it hasn't been done already). I > >already offered to him to do the port for *BSD, but he's a new dad and > >busy and didn't really get back to me... > > Sorry to say, but BitKeeper is severely braindead. They chose to built > on top of SCCS, which in itself is nearly useless. Also he has some > weird ideas about versioning which I certainly don't agree on. > > We use CVS at this moment, stepping towards BitKeeper from CVS is a step > backwards. I can not back these statements. Yes, I think there are some design flaws in BitKeeper, but certainly not enough to make it useless. I do not believe they are strong enough for it to be worse than CVS in any area I can think of, and contains improvements for a number of areas. I have, however, not tried using it in practice, so there may be problems I do not know about. > Eivind and me are trying to get a new version control system of the > ground which will kick arse on several accounts. Unfortunately work > draws us in. Yes, I am working on a new version control system, and Jeroen is helping. This system has at least one severe disadvantage compared to BitKeeper: It is not available as of right now. This work has deliberately been kept low-key, as I see it as harmful to hype prior to actually delivering. I also hope this to be a project that can cooperate with other version control projects (giving a very solid baseline, to which other projects can deliver 'value add'). As a such, it is extremely counter-productive to go off with active flamethrowers when another product is mentioned, and I want to totally distance me from it. This is NOT the official line of the OVCS project, and Larry is on the list of people to contact to look at possibilites for cooperation once OVCS has core code in place. My apologies on behalf of the OVCS project, Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message