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."
IIRC, the PPC Kernel is maintained through BitKeeper, and has been for quite some time.
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
Now I'm confused!
I've been using CVS for years and read with great interest the recent Linux Journal article about the Subversion project to created a CVS replacement that is better than CVS.
Then I see a Slashdot story about arch.
Now, my FearLessLeader starts using Bitkeeper.
Should I move from CVS and, if so, which is best?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
personable? Theo? Good God! he's like a living godzilla spewing white hot embers of death everywhere...
not that i don't love the OpenBSD project (i have several machines running it), but to say that Theo is personable is like saying everyone needs a porcupine to snuggle up with at night.
Bitkeeper is available under two licenses. The commercial license costs money and comes with support. The non-commercial license does not cost money., but it has a requirement that all your ChangeLogs must be sent to a world-readable server controlled by BitMover.
Bitkeeper source is available, but it's illegal to redistribute a version of Bitkeeper with the mandatory open logging stripped out.
Bitmover Inc. wants to avoid the situation where people use bitkeeper like gcc, taking free software tools but not giving anything back. You can pay Bitmover money, or you can use a free-as-in-beer version that is suitable for software libre and unsuitable for closed-source software.
I use CVS all the time, but I know its limitations. Linus was right when he decided not to use CVS, it simply is not reliable enough. But don't blame CVS, it is a good and useful tool; but every tool has its safe zone of "recommended use", and Linux kernel is way beyond that. I say, any project above 50 KLOCs and with 100 revisions on average would be pushing the limits.
If it is comercial, what is Jeeves doing on their web interface, he programmed it or something?
Maybe I should just ask him.
http://bitkeeper.com/Products.Comparisons.Perforce .html
Allthough this is marketing poop so it should be taken with a fine grain of salt, it might answer your question.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
In other news, demons all over Hell were seen lacing up their skates for the upcoming hockey match against the U.S. National team.
(IANAL)
Well, Bitkeeper's license isn't GPL, nor do I think that it's been certified as an 'Open Source' license by Eric Raymond's definition. However, it's got some interesting features that are as interesting and powerful as the GPL, and that even work in the public interest.
You can get it for free (as in beer) and it says that it will revert to GPL if they go out of business (eg, their OpenLogging servers go down for more than 180 days)... which is an interesting clause that ensures that 'abandonware' becomes a public resource.
The one scary part is that you MUST submit metadata to their OpenLogging system, or pay money for a 'closed use' license. Now before you hurl, consider... all open source projects already have all their metadata (and all their source too!) out in the open!
Is this really so bad? People who don't want to share, have to pay... it sounds like it's punishing institutions that don't produce open source with Bitkeeper (individual use is exempt). Richard Stallman might be pleased!
Apart from that, the only other funny part of the license that I see, is you lose your license if you sue BitMover over intellectual property rights. I'm not sure what to make of that, I guess it's a way to cover their own butts. I'd be upset if Microsoft had it in their license, but here, it seems appropriate.
So while they aren't using the GPL or a BSD license or the Artistic license or any other common, popular OSS license, they ARE going out of their way to work with developers and users instead of exploiting them. That's a far cry from Microsoft or even 'linux-friendly' software companies like Oracle. They've found (even more) ways to write software and work with the public, without giving away the shop.
I'd say, on the whole, two thumbs up.
"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?
I am very thankful that Linus finally "saw the light" and started using a source code control system.
:)
I really like the new change logs, I have always hated the old change logs as being too uninformative. One of the really interesting things for me about a source code control system is that it preserves a lot more of the history of the source code than the tar balls do.
It is also really cool how it branches the source for every patch and checks in the code with the users name as the one who checked it in and the body of the email as the comment. If Linus can find a way to also check in his rejected comments on a patch then that will also be very useful. It would be interesting to capture a little bit of the why instead of just the how in the kernel development process.
To apply a patch you just have to merge the branch that contains the patch back into the main development branch, fix any conflicts, compile, fix it so it works right and then commit.
And Linus will never lose another patch again, they will be saved for all time in the source tree under a seperate branch.
Once Linux lets his inner sanctum of kernel developers all start merging approved patches into his main branch then we will see the kernel development really speed up.
Thanks!
-- Never make a general statement.
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 found very interesting a document from Jack Moffitt (of xiph.org fame,
u blic/critique.html
l
one of the main Ogg developers and one of the Icecast Core Developers),
about some problems he had with the BK license when he was using it
for hosting Icecast:
"A Critique of the BitKeeper License"
http://www.mit.edu/afs/athena/user/x/i/xiphmont/P
You might also find interesting his post on the matter to the
"Icecast Developer Discussion List":
http://www.xiph.org/archives/icecast-dev/0067.htm
I hope that he will post here his his experience using BK
in an Open/Free-source project...
Best regards
\\Uriel
P.S.: Yea, I know I'm karma whoring, but I'm sure many people will find this interesting,
specially in casse Jack dont post to this history latter
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
How does Linus using BitKeeper make kernel development harder for those who don't have it (can't afford, won't use non-free software, whatever)?
Linus and the maintainers will still accept patches in email, so nothing's changed except Linus now has a tool that is likely to help him keep up the extremely high productivity.
And, using non-free software to manage the development of free software doesn't make the free software any less free. It's not like it could only be compiled by a non-free compiler.
Maybe this means that those who write free software will next write a tool even better than BitKeeper and the world will be once more a little better place.
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
> It's somewhat sad that Linux,
Why? I find it interesting.
There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong with charging for software. If you do nothing but write software for work, you have a reasonable expectation to make a living off it. The world doesn't run off charity man, nothing is free.
To me, the "pearl of Free Software" being version controlled by a commercial product is a grand statement.. that free software and commercial software can coexist peacefully.
Software "should" only be free as in speech anyways. If it's simultaneously free beer that's just icing on the cake.
No,
if you read the recent thread on l-k, it's because in private Linus has been talking for quite a while to the bitkeeper people about what he wanted from bitkeeper before he'd use it, and the bitkeeper people have gone and implemented most of it, so Linus agreed to use it for a while.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
I also used to think like this. The sum extent of my source control was cp -r currrent vX.x. Source control was for wimps.
I'm of a rather different view today. I now utterly insist on using it, even in tiny little things that I think are one-offs at the time (quite often it turns out they aren't).
I think I can understand Linus' dislike. It sounds like you're less free, and as if the whole coding thing is suddenly less enjoyable. However, having gone through exactly the same feelings I can say that in my case it certainly isn't true that things are less enjoyable. In fact, in some ways it's easier as I can go wandering off in my own direction for a while, before hitting a dead end and backtracking safe in the knowledge that I have a defined state to fall back on should I need to.
Personally, I'd recommend taking the plunge. Some systems are better than others, but any system use injects a bit more organisation and confidence into the process of coding.
Cheers,
Ian