[!CrackMonkey!] [Bram@moolenaar.net: Microsoft funds OpenSource
mr.bad at pigdog.org
Mon Nov 25 16:46:23 PST 2002
>>>>> "GK" == Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> writes:
Me> Strangely, tons and tons of free software developers are able
Me> to spend plenty of time coding, and little time with merges and
Me> conflict resolution, using Free source code control tools. Many
Me> have the same level of versioning and organizational complexity
Me> as the Linux kernel.
GK> Bully for them. Have you ever done kernel development with
GK> cvs? I didn't think so...
Has it ever been possible to do Linux kernel development with CVS? I
didn't think so. My understanding is that BitKeeper is the first and
only version control system used for the kernel. Is that incorrect?
I don't have a lot of information on other systems, but here's a
comparison with other Free Unixes:
NetBSD -- has anonymous CVS access and a CVS Web interface
suggestion that CVS is used.
FreeBSD -- http://www.freebsd.org/support.html#cvs . To
quote, "CVS (the Concurrent Version System) is
the tool we use for keeping our sources under
OpenBSD -- http://www.openbsd.org/why-cvs.html . Also uses
CVS, for all parts of the OS.
Maybe I'm crazy, but it seems like the full *BSD trees are at least as
complex as the Linux kernel by itself.
In addition, here are a number of other complex Free Software systems:
GNU -- CVS, using a modified SourceForge system called
Apache -- http://www.apache.org/foundation/cvs.html . Use
CVS for all projects.
Python -- Uses SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/projects/python/),
Here's one more big project that uses a proprietary VCS:
Perl -- http://dev.perl.org/perl5/docs/perlhack.html#keeping_in_sync
Use Perforce (boo!) and patches submitted by
Here's a couple I couldn't figure out:
Sendmail -- Unknown. They accept patches by email.
Bind -- Unknown.
I think my main point here is that it's possible to manage huge
complex projects with CVS.
Me> It's been a hallowed tradition in the Free Software world to
Me> work with slightly or grossly less convenient tools [...]
GK> Ogg see patch. Ogg see diff. Ogg see tarball. Ogg like, he
GK> feel manly using these primitive tools. Ogg happy to spend
GK> time merging by hand, makes him feel good.
Jeez, that's just ridiculous. There are plenty of tools in between a
proprietary SCM system and patch+diff+tarball.
Me> If millions of people hadn't been willing to work with
Me> inconvenient and unfamiliar tools, Linux would be in the same
Me> scrapheap as Oberon or Inferno.
GK> I've spent _years_ using these tools, don't tell me I don't
GK> know how they work, or why people use them.
Uh... and? You missed my point.
Me> Saying that one won't work with a given tool until it has
Me> feature X or syntax Y is the Chump Way.
GK> Ok, don't call me a chump, as I'm not saying that.
Well, there are other reasons you're a chump.
GK> Since when did I say that _me_ using bk will effect _you_ in
GK> any way?
I think you mean "affect." And the reasons it affects me and other Free
Software users are:
1) Linux is a high-profile development effort, and
2) It's become a well-publicized issue.
GK> Ohh, call me, "unpure" for not using "blessed with the holy
GK> RMS free software pee" tools to do what I like to do, on my
GK> own time, in my quest to write free software.
Hey, you know, I use non-free software too (I get barked at by vrms
every month for it). But developing the Linux kernel and playing
Zangband have far different levels of high-profileness.
P.S. Mmm... Zangband. Think I'll go throw away some freedom right now.
P.P.S. Zombie Mindcrafters ROXXOR!
Mr. Bad <mr.bad at pigdog.org> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/
"A mandrill's behavior is mysterious." -- Mask of the Mandrill
More information about the Crackmonkey