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

[Peter Nixon]

On Thursday 08 January 2004 20:23, 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 ?

I think I can explain this. Because BK is not opensource, the license that 
Larry distributes it under says you can use it for OpenSource code only where 
there is a public BK repository available. This is his right as an author and 
I think its a pretty nice business model. This may not be suitable for Digium 
however as they probably want to have some inhouse private branches for 
paying customers (or a second repository that is not open). This is fine if 
they buy a BK license, but that is added cost..

Hence the assumption by most people that they would not want to switch to BK 
if subversion can do the job.

I also don't want to start a source repository flame war, but I thought it was 
worth stating (a very paraphrased version) of the "problem" with BK as some 
people appeared not to know. I have no point of view on this personally as I 
have never bothered to use BK, but I personally have no problem paying for 
software IF it does something better than an opensource equivalent AND I need 
the feature.

Regards

-- 

Peter Nixon
http://www.peternixon.net/
PGP Key: http://www.peternixon.net/public.asc