4 ms·

This is where I have to point out that this would have been unlikely to happen with BitKeeper. :) BitKeeper doesn't provide a 'pull --rebase' and instead puts

by wscott 10y ago

This is where I have to point out that this would have been unlikely to happen with BitKeeper. :) BitKeeper doesn't provide a 'pull --rebase' and instead puts this in separate commands 'bk pull; bk collapse -e@; bk citool'. By default, collapse will refuse to replace an already released cset. Yeah less powerful, but we believe more predictable. Also, tags are fully revisioned controlled and propagate with every pull. You can move a tag to another revision and that operation becomes its own cset that propagates. www.bitkeeper.org

abstractbeliefs 10y ago
Maybe so, but have the licensing and philosophical reasons that led Torvalds to move the kernel away from BitKeeper been resolved? Until that can be said and news of that disseminated widely, I think many open source projects will consider BitKeeper as simply not having enough of a technical edge over Git to discount the cultural penalties (namely, "bad" reputation withing FLOSS and smaller population of users).
- wscott 10y ago
  I fully understand your concerns, which it why I try to post about bk periodically. Go look at bitkeeper.org, we are now fully open source and published under a plain Apache 2.0 license. No additional license or restrictions. So we can be as evil as we want and you are still safe to use it. ;-)
- asjo 10y ago
  BitKeeper was open sourced in May (Apache 2.0 licensed). The news was disseminated quite widely: * https://lwn.net/Articles/686896/ https://lwn.net/Articles/686896/ * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494
luckydude 10y ago
And open source and has submodules that actually work and has a binary manager that works for world wide development (no single server). Oh, and has bk fast-import so any git project can try it out. And of course has bk fast-export so you can bail out if you don't like it. Incremental fast-import coming.

by wscott 10y ago

abstractbeliefs 10y ago

Maybe so, but have the licensing and philosophical reasons that led Torvalds to move the kernel away from BitKeeper been resolved? Until that can be said and news of that disseminated widely, I think many open source projects will consider BitKeeper as simply not having enough of a technical edge over Git to discount the cultural penalties (namely, "bad" reputation withing FLOSS and smaller population of users).

wscott 10y ago
I fully understand your concerns, which it why I try to post about bk periodically. Go look at bitkeeper.org, we are now fully open source and published under a plain Apache 2.0 license. No additional license or restrictions. So we can be as evil as we want and you are still safe to use it. ;-)
asjo 10y ago
BitKeeper was open sourced in May (Apache 2.0 licensed). The news was disseminated quite widely: * https://lwn.net/Articles/686896/ https://lwn.net/Articles/686896/ * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11667494

luckydude 10y ago

And open source and has submodules that actually work and has a binary manager that works for world wide development (no single server). Oh, and has bk fast-import so any git project can try it out. And of course has bk fast-export so you can bail out if you don't like it. Incremental fast-import coming.