lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Why not GNU Arch instead of BitKeeper?
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:36:35PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:

> Asfand Yar Qazi <ay0305@qazi.f2s.com> writes:
> > I'm surprised nobody considered GNU Arch
> > (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) to replace BitKeeper - it was
> > probably started in direct response to the Linux Kernel using a
> > non-free tool.
> >
> > I must say I haven't used it, but from reviews and comparisons I've
> > read, it seems to be a good tool.
>
> I agree (I use it) -- but of course it has its own issues. For instance
> it has a _lot_ less attention payed to optimization than one might wish
> (judging from "git", this is very important to Linus :-). The concept
> of "archives" and their associated namespace offer some nice advantages,
> but is a very different model than BK uses, and I presume sticking with
> the familiar and simple BK model was attractive.

You can get somebody to be doing some work with bitkeeper within a few
minutes. Arch has a much longer getting started phase.

Ralf
-
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: 2005-04-13 15:13    [W:0.045 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site