login
Search
Marcelo Tosatti has begun using BitKeeper to keep a hold on the 2.4 tree. You can read the juicy details in the thread here.
It doesn't look like anyone's been complaining too much about Marcelo losing patches, but he's certainly getting flooded with things for 2.4.19, so this can only be good news.
*vil Licenses
First of all: everyone is free to use whatever tools he likes. Everyone who wants Linux to remain 100% Free Software should read the article linked below before agreeing to their License.
I mean, if kernel-modules with no or a non-free LICENSE() taint your kernel then Linux itself should at all costs not depend on non-free tools for mainline-development sometime in the future.
I don't want to start a large thread to discuss this license, I just want to provide a link for everyone interested to read.
Therefore I couldn't resist but post Jack Moffit's excellent analysis of the BitKeeper license
Most important and surprising to me were:
2.3.1. Regression Tests
2.5. Termination for Support Costs
--
I used to have a sig until the great Kahuna of FOOness
told me to dump it and use /dev/urandom instead.
Well then...
If you're going to put it that way, then I guess I don't want Linux to remain 100% Free Software. I want Linux to be the best kernel that it can be by making use of the best tools out there for development regardless of people's ideology. This includes both BitKeeper and kdb.
if you don't like it
fork the kernel and live in your own little world happily ever after.
Pro-BitKeeper troll
The parent poster clearly states, "The adoption of BitKeeper is not a problem that's serious enough to fork the kernel for." I agree that forking is not the answer, but the opinions expressed by Evans are IMO very substantiative and need to be addressed.
-- JE
2.4.19-pre4 Changelog
For anyone still reading this, the new changelog is in BitKeeper format. It's certainly more verbose.
Development goes on...
Let us rephrase the debate a little here...
The Free Software Movement has failed it's flagship project by not providing sufficiently robust source management tools. A proprietary firm with a personal interest in the project, has provided free of charge, yet not free of encumbrances, a software management tool that by all accounts meets the needs of the developers.
If I remember correctly, just about everyone here who was using linux more than a year and a half ago for desktop, was using netscape 4.X, a proprietary browser, for the simple reason there wasn't anything else available. The situation is much different now, since there are more than one full featured browsers available, improving almost weekly. So we ditched our proprietary software for a better and free package. Even Debian had netscape 4.x for that reason.
The kernel development seemed to be hitting a wall. It wasn't a matter of Linus doing more, sleeping less, or not talking to his wife and kids. It was a matter of the tools being used not scaling to the task. To avoid blocking the development process, they have adopted a tool. If there was an open and free alternative, there would be no discussion. But there ain't.
To solve the license problem, somebody must write a tool that does the specific things the kernel developers need.
Derek