Hi!
> >>(Just a very personal suggestion)
> >>Why to waste time trying to clone a
> >>tool such as bitkeeper? Why not to support things like subversion?
> >
> >
> >Because the repositories people need to read are in BK format, for better
> >or worse. It doesn't ultimately matter if you use it as an input filter
> >for CVS, subversion or no VCS at all.
>
> "BK format"? Not really. Patches have been posted (to lkml, even) to
> GNU CSSC which allow it to read SCCS files BK reads and writes.
>
> Since that already exists, a full BitKeeper clone is IMO a bit silly,
> because it draws users and programmers away from projects that could
> potentially _replace_ BitKeeper.
Read-only access to the bk repositories is the first goal. Then, I'll
either add write support (unlikely) or feed it into some existing
version control system to work with that. I'm still not sure what's
the best.
[bk's on-disk format is quite reasonable; it might be okay to reuse
that.]
Pavel
-- When do you have a heart between your knees? [Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 07 2003 - 22:00:23 EST