[Linux-cluster] Subversion?

[John Cherry]

On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 11:02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> On Monday 23 August 2004 13:07, John Cherry wrote:
> > I understand that subversion is quite nice, but kernel developers
> > have adopted bitkeeper (at least Linus and several of his
> > maintainers). While you may not need all the distributed capabilities 
> > of bitkeeper now, it is sure nice to have a tool that allows for
> > non-local repositories and change set tracking outside of the main
> > repository (as Kevin so clearly stated).
> 
> In my humble opinion, Bitkeeper does not have a snowball's chance in 
> hell of getting established on sources.redhat.com.

I kinda figured it didn't have a chance at sources.redhat.com.  But what
about bkbits.net?

> 
> > Since mainline kernel acceptance of the core services is one of the
> > objectives here, I would certainly recommend that you consider
> > bitkeeper for source control as well.
> 
> Just read the license.
> 
>    http://www.taniwha.org/bitkeeper.html
> 
> "Sometimes it is tempting to sacrifice our rights and freedoms for 
> convinience, but we should not do so... with the increasing popularity 
> of alternative licenses, it is important [to] determine whether they 
> preserve the minimum acceptable amount of freedom and be responsible 
> about choosing software that that meets these minimum criteria and 
> advances our goals as a community"
> 
> This is 3 years old, however there has been no improvement, quite the 
> contrary.

I understand the concerns about the license.  It is one of the strangest
licenses I have ever read and it sounds like the licensees are at the
mercy of the licenser in many respects (the rights and freedoms
arguements).

However, bk is being used across the kernel development community and
this does not appear to be changing anytime soon.

BTW, most developers do just fine with up to date tarballs, so source
control is not a huge issue for most of them.

John