linuxppc_2_5 source tree (and others)
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Quoted 3 lines · Cort Dougan
Believe me, I know what it looks like. I'm trying to clean things up but it's a large problem. I do appreciate your criticisms though, they are useful in finding the worst parts.
And we appreciate your efforts - thank you.
Quoted 10 lines
Perhaps I can clear things up a bit. I wanted _2_4 stable so that it didn't get brand-new (untested and buggy) code. I created _2_5 as a work-area for us so people could push changes there, test them internally and work out any problems. We could then move them over to _2_4 quickly when the changes were stable. Unfortunately, people started giving out the _2_5 tree and telling people to use it.
So, to solve that problem I created
_2_4_develso that we could get outside testing and let users chose which kernel they wanted (brand-new features or very stable and tested).
This is fair enough. I just didn't know what was going on. I have joined the linuxppc-commit mailing list so I should be better informed in future.
Just as an aside, might this mean that it would be easier to get bk write access to the _2_4_devel tree? (slight smiley :-).
Quoted 3 lines
Unfortunately we need multiple trees since branches won't do the job for us. Lines of development will, though. The people at BitMover and working on that feature of BitKeeper for us already.
Except it looks like you only get LODs if you pay. The free version won't have LODs - and a number of other nifty features (as far as I can tell).
Quoted 5 lines
When the real 2.5.0 comes out (when Linus creates it) I'll create another tree,
linuxppc_2_5. I made a mistake in naming our experimental treelinuxppc_2_5, this tree will be the reallinuxppc_2_5. We'll probably have alinuxppc_2_5andlinuxppc_2_5_develbut that's still to be decided (it will probably be decided by need).
I actually guessed this was what had happened when I checked on kernel.org and saw that there wasn't an official linux 2.5 yet (just some pre release patches).
Quoted 2 lines
If the
linuxppc_2_4_develtree doesn't work for you let me know what trouble you're having and I'll try to help.
Thanks for your response - you have cleared the matter up as far as I am concerned. I feel much better about it all now - I will probably switch to the _2_4_devel tree. Cheers!
Murray...
--
Murray Jensen, CSIRO Manufacturing Sci & Tech, Phone: +61 3 9662 7763
Locked Bag No. 9, Preston, Vic, 3072, Australia. Fax: +61 3 9662 7853
Internet: [email protected] (old address was [email protected])
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
I'm not sure what the current plan is at BitMover but I believe that's a feature of BitKeeper/Pro but not BitKeeper/Open. Linux developers (possibly all open-source people) are able to get BitKeeper/Pro.
} Except it looks like you only get LODs if you pay. The free version won't } have LODs - and a number of other nifty features (as far as I can tell).
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Quoted 2 lines · Cort Dougan
I'm not sure what the current plan is at BitMover but I believe that's a feature of BitKeeper/Pro but not BitKeeper/Open.
I don't know the exact situation either - all I can go on is their website, which describes two versions of BitKeeper - BK/Pro and BK/Basic. The BK/Basic page says it provides everything that BK/Pro does, except for:
- Hierarchical repositories
- Ability to resolve rename conflicts in anything other than the master repository
- Rollback
- Global multi-site
- Event triggers
- LOD (line of development) support
There is also a description of BK/Web, which appears to be a third part.
Based on this, I am assuming that BK/Basic is (or will be) the free version, and BK/Pro is (or will be) the commercial version that you must pay for. It seems to me that it would be pointless to use BK/Basic only for the Linux kernel - all this stuff, and LODs in particular, are too useful.
I have no problem with them selling software, and I quite like BitKeeper - it feels right, like it has the correct approach to software version control (at least in the case where there is a large number of distributed developers and one single entity being developed consisting of a huge number of files - exactly the case with the Linux source).
However, I would question the use of closed-source, non-free software to develop open-source, free software - in effect, it makes the software being developed (in this case Linux) closed and non-free - imagine, for example, if you had the Linux source, but had to pay for a compiler to build it - and not just any C compiler - you had to buy company X's compiler. Now I know there are other methods available of getting the source besides BK (rsync, ftp of tarballs, etc), but you don't get the version control info, which I reckon is getting almost as essential as the compiler these days.
Quoted 2 lines
Linux developers
(possibly all open-source people) are able to get BitKeeper/Pro.
(I assume you mean for free - but obviously binary only; no source code)
This would be welcome - but how does one qualify as a "linux developer" or an "open-source person"? If I can register for free with an independent organisation and BitMover recognised this then great - but if it is left up to BitMover to decide whether I qualify, this seems somewhat less than satisfactory.
Sorry for rambling - this is really just an academic argument - the real world rolls on... (we may even pay for BitKeeper :-) Cheers!
Murray...
--
Murray Jensen, CSIRO Manufacturing Sci & Tech, Phone: +61 3 9662 7763
Locked Bag No. 9, Preston, Vic, 3072, Australia. Fax: +61 3 9662 7853
Internet: [email protected] (old address was [email protected])
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/