Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

From: Sven Dowideit
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 17:57:53 EST


Larry,

On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 05:42, Larry McVoy wrote:
> It would be free as in w/ source, probably BSD rather than GPL but some
> license you'd like. About the only thing we'd need to worry about is
> our commercial customers taking this and using it as a way to not pay
> for some seats so there is some chance that we'd want to put in some
> hook there, I'd have to think about that before promising anything.
to my mind this would be brilliant, but i don't remember every whinging
about bk ;).

The only requirements that would need to be fulfilled for it to go into
debian, would be source, a licence that does not restrict the usage of
the code/ package, and a distinct lack of invariant sections in the
license. (a real debian developer can probably elaborate better than i)
>
> I'm curious as to why you would think this is better than the CVS gateway.
> The CVS gateway is actually a really nice thing. The whiners think we
> have somehow hamstrung the data in the gateway but that's only because
> they haven't looked at the data, if they had done a careful comparison
> then they'd know it's all in there.
last time i tried the cvs gateway, i think i had trouble getting a full
shadow.. I should try again really, but i would hope that the
openBKClient could be faster, better and more modern (oh, and sexy too)

(and would mean that you don't need the cvs gateway anymore!)
>
> So what's the attraction? Having a client that will work with any BK
> server? Do you realize that the client is just a way to get at the head?
> And tagged releases? It doesn't have 1/10th the functionality of BK itself.
yep. and for me, until i do some actual kernel development (unlikely as
i just can't find the time), this is all i think i want - i should be
able to do a bit more testing this way.


cheers

Sven

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part