Re: log-buf-len dynamic

[Linus Torvalds]

On 25 Sep 2003, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > 
> > However, that only explains why you don't use BitKeeper. And everybody
> > accepts that. When I started to use BK, I made it _very_ clear that
> > service for non-BK users will be _at_least_ as good as it ever was before
> > I started using BK.
> 
> And for the core kernel development this is true.  There are subprojects
> that are currently using BK that you can't even get the code without
> BK.  And the only reason they are using BK is they are attempting to
> following how Linux is managed.  So having the Linux kernel
> development use BK does have some down sides.

That's actually a pretty good point. I end up releasing "sparse" only as a
BK archive, simply because I'm too lazy to care and there aren't enough
people involved (and those that _are_ involved do actually end up
re-exporting it as non-BK, but that doesn't invalidate your point).

I don't know what the solution to it might be - but I don't think the 
reason they are using BK is that they are trying to emulate "the great 
kernel project". I know it wasn't for me - it's just that once you get 
used to BK, there's no way you'll ever go back to CVS willingly. 

> In addition there are some major gains to be had in standardizing on a
> distributed version control system that everyone can use, and
> unfortunately BK does not fill that position.

I don't disagree, but I don't see a real way to solve it. As Larry will 
tell you, the technical problems are bigger than you imagine.  So a BK 
killer won't be coming any time soon, methinks.

		Linus

-
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/