[Asterisk-Dev] benevolent dictatorship, or inclusive developper community?

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Thursday 08 January 2004 12:23, C. Maj wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Steven Critchfield waxed:
> > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 10:32, C. Maj wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Chris Albertson waxed:
> > > > (see update command in cvs manpage). So, yes you could have
> > > > multiple lines of developmentand merge them back into a main
> > > > line.
> > >
> > > Yeah and live in a nightmare.  The kernel only uses CVS as a
> > > daily (or whatever) dump of what's in BitKeeper.  People
> > > submit patches against CVS, sure, but the "branching" is
> > > done with BK repositories.
> > >
> > >     http://www.bitkeeper.com/
> >
> > Well without dredging up the BK vs. every other revision control
> > software flame war, lets just point out that that wouldn't be a
> > viable option here.
>
> Point being the kernel doesn't use CVS, so it's apples and
> oranges.  You seemed to imply previously in this thread that
> the kernel worked like that and this is how branches or
> "mini forks" are created, through CVS.  My apologies if that
> was a glib interpretation of your comments.  I'm just trying
> to determine whether it is your lack of knowledge about BK
> that would lead you to suggest that it's not a viable option
> or something else.  Could you please explain ?

We have developers for Asterisk who have contributed to competing
source control projects.  Given the non-free nature of BK's license,
this would force those developers to purchase a BK license to
contribute to Asterisk.  You may like BK, but until its license stops
discriminating against who may use it freely, it's entirely
inappropriate to adopt its usage.

-Tilghman