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. > 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. Regards, Daniel
