Re: log-buf-len dynamic

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 08:38:35PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And that was NEVER the issue, even though you keep bringing it up. Again

that is _the_ issue from my part, the thing that isn't remotely going to
make me think to use bitkeeper. If there wasn't that clause in the
licence I would probably find acceptable to use it in the meantime.

But I guess I'd better go away as you ask since I feel like nobody
understands why I'm not using it despite I'm trying to explain it a few
times already.

> The issue is that you should not complain about other peoples choices. 

I'm not complaining about that, I was making a suggestion to Marcelo
outlighting what was possible to achieve if it was open (yeah, it's a
minor thing). Larry even said what I suggested was not an optimal fix
and I agree with that so I will try to fix it right. I think it was a
productive suggestion after all.

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:
	    rsync.kernel.org::pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.[45]/
	    http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/
	    svn://svn.kernel.org/linux-2.[46]/trunk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/