On Saturday 25 September 2004 04:30, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:07:22AM -0700, 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). > > Do you think, redhat will provide bk licenses for people which don't > get a free one? I'm a subversion and svk developer and will not get > one because of this. Speaking with my red hat on, I do not think Red Hat will provide a Bitkeeper license for anyone who is not a Red Hat employee. Speaking personally, I oppose the use of any proprietary version control tool in an open source project. Arch and Subversion are both good enough to do the job. Regards, Daniel
