Slashdot Mirror
Linus Tries Out BitKeeper
Flammon writes: "Linus has been overloaded
with patches for a while and recently the issue started to become hot again. In an unprecedented move, Linus has started using BitKeeper, as reported by Linux Today. The benefits of BitKeeper are already showing from the large amount of detail provided in the latest unstable kernel pre-release." eirikref adds: "Read Linus' own statement and take a look at the BK web interface."
That is fine; but the most important problems would be absence of changesets (so you can't undo related groups of patches), and absence of tiered repositories (everyone goes to the same, single, central CVS server). It all can work, and it does work as we know, but the more code you write the more difficult the maintenance becomes. Like it or not, CVS is an old software, unchanged for years and full of kludges, and BK is one of new designs.
"It's his friggin' hobby, after all. If people don't like the way he deals with it, maybe they ought to go work for a more personable coder on another OS, like, say, Theo De Raadt."
Um, except that NOBODY WORKS FOR LINUS! Linux isn't Linus's ball anymore to take away when he doesn't like how people are playing the game. That said, I think he's been a wonderful leader and manager, and is obviously opening up to suggestions. But it is stupid and insulting to say that people who aren't satisfied with Linus's management should just suck it and pick another OS. Linus himself would tell you that Linux is more the community's than his.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
There's a point where a kernel development becomes a little more than a hobby. I would have to say Linus has crossed that line long ago. He may or may not recieve DIRECT monetary incentives to keep up the good work, but regardless, the line is crossed. It's now a profession. Linus is a professional Linux developer. Until he takes a professional position that does not allow him to spend as much time on kernel development, it's his profession, and as such no longer a hobby.
There are lots of ways of providing such hooks. Perhaps the most compatible with the Linux kernel mindset would be something similar to Emacs-hooks: replace most kernel functions with variables holding function pointers to the actual code and provide APIs for manipulating those hooks.
I did a superficial investigation on source control systems, and found some very interesting really free ones, like Aægis.
Does someone know if free alternatives to BK were considered, and if so why a semi-free one was choosen? If BK was better, specifically how it compared to Aægis and other alternatives?
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
From Linus' email, mentioned above:
Basically, I'm aiming to be able to accept patches directly from email,
Does Linus use PGP sigs (for example) to verify the senders of these patches? I hope he does (being Linus and all that).
And then Linus complains and complains....
I personally like the comment about he was only able to do 50 patches etc... (Gee Linus that's ten off from last month??) This is still about the fact that Linus is overwhelmed and refuses to delegate. The community gets up in arms about it finally, and Linus gets a CVS system instead of splitting up some work.
Well, maybe this will quiet the community until Alan C. can get back to it.
~Hammy
Linus has finally moved from chaos to order. One of the major complaints about the Linux VS BSD development model (a lack of a control system) has been fixed.
Now, to address what this means for Bitkeeper.....its death. Yes. Bitkeeper is now doomed. Why? Simple. The "keep this in the GPL family" movement will have someone clone the Bitkeeper method of software management, and a GPLed Bitkeeper clone will be created, it will catch up to Bitkeeper, pass it, and then Bitkeeper will have its oxygen cut off, and they will die.
Actually, those contracts that say "we can change it and you're still bound by it" aren't valid.
There are some cases they can be, but it's usually the sort of thing where you get a bank statement that lists the new regulations and you "accept by continued use". When a company says that they can change the agreement without warning though, and it's your responsibility to check, they're lying.
One legal reform I'd *really* like is to make it illegal for companies to lie about the law. It's like a warranty where they say "You get squat - except where local law says otherwise" They shouldn't be able to say "You get squat" because in almost all countries there are lemon laws and the like. Similarly, companies shouldn't be able to tell you that you have no legal recourse when you do, or to tell you you must accept bizarre terms when those terms aren't enforceable.
BitKeeper seems quite honest, if they don't resort to this kind of trickery.