On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:36:35PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Asfand Yar Qazi <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
