Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 19:31:13 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: What Larry McVoy (bitkeeper) got wrong .... Message-ID: <868twsqn1a.fsf@desk.des.no> In-Reply-To: <44e4450e-8dbb-f401-bd5c-df503f7a4ef8@FreeBSD.org> (Pedro Giffuni's message of "Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:48:27 -0500") References: <44e4450e-8dbb-f401-bd5c-df503f7a4ef8@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> writes: > I was in the process of preparing a port of bitkeeper and I found this: > > https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper > > "The BitKeeper history needs to be written up but the short version is > that it happened because Larry wanted to help Linux not turn into a > bunch of splintered factions like 386BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, > DragonFlyBSD, etc. He saw that the problem was one of tooling. ..." This may be poorly written, but what they're trying to say is that there was a serious risk of someone forking Linux solely because they were tired of the Linus bottleneck, and a DVCS would help avoid that. That's not particularly shocking. BitKeeper was the first semi-free DVCS and possibly the second DVCS ever (the first being Sun TeamWare, also by Larry McVoy). Here's a real gem, though: "They stayed in it for three more years before moving to Git because BitKeeper wasn't open source." Because clearly, McVoy throwing a hissy fit and revoking their license had nothing to do with it. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?868twsqn1a.fsf>