Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 01 May 1999 17:31:29 -0700
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
To:        mjacob@feral.com
Cc:        Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: BitKeeper (was Re: solid NFS patch #6 avail for -current - need testers files) 
Message-ID:  <21365.925605089@zippy.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 01 May 1999 11:22:33 PDT." <Pine.LNX.4.04.9905011111540.16544-100000@feral.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Look- if Linux adopts Bitkeeper, you really should pay attention to that.
> I doubt you'd find a more difficult set of software engineers to keep code
> in sync for than the Linux folks- if Bitkeeper works for them and
> essentially makes a rational release train for Linux, then a major
> glaring flaw in Linux' strategy that keeps serious businesses from really
> being able to trust it will be removed. Think about it.

I think this all fails to address the distribution problem, however.
Let's say we adopt bitkeeper - what becomes of CTM, CVSup and CVSWeb,
all interfaces in extremely common use today?  It's not just enough to
say "something will be worked out" as an answer either, not when
contemplating a move which will remove services currently in heavy
operational use.  Think about it. :)

- Jordan


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21365.925605089>