From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 8 21:47:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98D3716A4CE for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:47:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6052C43D58 for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:47:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from clint@0lsen.net) Received: from 0lsen.net ([24.20.127.157]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004110821475201300c251ee>; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:47:53 +0000 Received: by 0lsen.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5AA941735A; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:47:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 13:47:52 -0800 From: Clint Olsen To: Will Saxon Message-ID: <20041108214752.GD24941@0lsen.net> References: <0E972CEE334BFE4291CD07E056C76ED802E87561@bragi.housing.ufl.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0E972CEE334BFE4291CD07E056C76ED802E87561@bragi.housing.ufl.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Organization: NULlsen Network X-Disclaimer: Mutt Bites! cc: Chris Laverdure cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.0 and onwards X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:47:54 -0000 On Nov 08, Will Saxon wrote: > I have no say since I don't develop anything, but my 2 cents is, that > product should not be used out of principle, even if it does everything > that needs to be done and more. The discussion I read pretty clearly > described to me the owner's attitude; it is not an attitude I would wish > to validate through support of the product. I didn't realize that BitMover applied some special requirements to the Linux folks. My understanding was that you can use it for free _but_ your commit/push logs needed to be open to BitMover. I'm not aware of the copying requirement. However, I would avoid it not just because of the license but because I don't like the way it works. I use it at my job, and while it does have some interesting capabilities wrt merging, the explict branch revision repository requirement is really annoying IMO. Branches are by definition their own copy of the repository. The burden of the management of these branches are shifted onto the user rather than handled by the server. You also cannot pull changes from a parent repository until you've committed (bk term, not CVS) your work thus far. That also irks me to no end. Recovering old work requires a degree in higher math esp. graph theory. "To get version blah, you must first take the tip revision and subtract out this version, that version, oh, and that version." As I said to our support contact, "Put down Dijkstra's thesis and start talking to us in plain English." Need I go on? -Clint