lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:24    [W:0.095 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site