Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:17:45 +0100 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers |
| |
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 10:40:44AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > I also prefer not to use Bitkeeper as long as possible for similar reasons > and because it is too slow and clumpsy > (although it is already very hard because often source is only available > through it, e.g. for ppc or for 2.5 pre patches now -- hopefully this trend > does not continue)
Something I've not yet worked out is why none of the proponents of arch, subversion etc are offering to run a mirror of Linus' bitkeeper tree for those who don't want to use bk, but "must have 0-day kernels".
-- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - 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/
| |