What do to about BitKeeper and the Linux Kernel (was: BitKeeper licence critic)

MJ Ray markj at cloaked.freeserve.co.uk
Fri Mar 8 12:38:23 UTC 2002

Bernhard Reiter <bernhard at intevation.de> wrote:
> The interesting part of the mail is that he gives pointers=20
> on what we could do to improve the situation if we want to hack on software:

This is probably the most useful thing we can do.  Petitioning requests have
limited impact, as it seems some people see petitions as "demands" rather
than "popular requests".

>| The most productive thing people could do might be to just do a
>| BK->CVS gateway, if you really feel like it. =20
> This might be a good idea if it will help the transistion to CVS
> or other Free Software tools. It is not a good idea if it helps
> people to continue using BK.

I think it would be more beneficial to create a BK->Aegis converter, as
Aegis appears (hint: I'm not using it extensively yet) to be able to use
SCCS format at the back (via CSSC).  I'm not keen on the idea of gatewaying,
as it will allow the server to remain non-free and the data to be held
there, a hostage to restricted software.

> Implying that he did not look at Aegis yet. If Aegis is worth a look, we
> could check it regarding Linus' needs and make it easy for him to try it.

The more I read, the more this looks like the way forward.  If someone more
qualified/experienced than me could do a head to head comparison, it would
help me immensely.  Questions which are to my mind immediately: If Aegis is
that old, why does subversion exist?  Why does BK exist?  Why aren't the
Aegis folks screaming at the world in frustration yet?  Why aren't we all
using it?

MJR ,----------------------------------------------------
    | Q. Do you need a net-based application developing, 
    |    or advice and training about web technology?
    | A. I suggest you try http://www.luminas.co.uk/

More information about the Discussion mailing list