Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:26:39 +0100 (MET) | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Subject | Re: Petition Against Official Endorsement of BitKeeper by Linux Maintainers |
| |
On 6 Mar 2002, Andi Kleen wrote: > Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> writes: > > The Open Source Club at The Ohio State University wrote: > > > > > > [ succinctness ] > > > > > > > fwiw, I prefer to not use bitkeeper, for the reasons which > > you outline. > > 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)
The PPC trees are available through rsync as well.
http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
- 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/
| |