Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:05:32 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@village.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Version control software (was: Patch sets to date and timing tests with Giant out of userret.) Message-ID: <3C74720C.CCC8AF1E@mindspring.com> References: <20020219080019.8F1673A9A@overcee.wemm.org> <00cd01c1b926$82d35bb0$ef01a8c0@davidwnt> <20020219.135131.83283562.imp@village.org> <20020219164406.B29698@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020221124325.Y65817@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > On Tuesday, 19 February 2002 at 16:44:06 -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 01:51:31PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >> Bitkeeper enforces the linux devleopment model > >> to a large extent, > > > > In what way(s)? > > I'd be interested in this too. I've been using Bitkeeper for, well, > Linux development, but I don't see anything which locks it in to that > direction. Of course, Bitkeeper isn't free either, so there's no > particular reason to prefer it to p4. Bitkeeper is free if you publish your repository; P4 is free if you are a free software project. Otherwise, they cost. Both are barriers to commercial utilization of free code, in the same way. -- Terry 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?3C74720C.CCC8AF1E>