Differences between version 7 and revision by previous author of BitKeeper.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
Newer page: | version 7 | Last edited on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 1:26:40 am | by AristotlePagaltzis | Revert |
Older page: | version 5 | Last edited on Thursday, November 6, 2003 11:12:51 am | by JohnMcPherson | Revert |
@@ -1,15 +1,3 @@
-BitKeeper is a RevisionControlSystem like
[CVS]. From what I can gather it does things quite differently
.
+[
BitKeeper | http://www.bitkeeper.com/]
is the VersionControlSystem used for the LinuxKernel development since sometime around 2.4.13. Its major distinguishing characteristic is that it keeps distributed repositories, unlike the
[CVS] model where everyone commits to a central repository located on a single host
.
-''I believe it's quite different because CVS thinks about "per file" changes, where BitKeeper thinks about "changesets" -- PerryLorier''
-
-Linus
is now using BitKeeper for the kernel sources since sometime around 2.4.13
-
-BitKeeper isn't
FreeSoftware. It
does some strange things; for example, it will make
all your changes/log files public,
unless you buy a commercial licence (the
idea being
that open source software
can use it without charge, but people who want to keep changes proprietary need to pay $$
). I'm not sure about the licence details, but I think it requires
you to accept changes to the licence, and to use newer versions of the software
.
-
Another contentious issue is that they changed their licence so that people could not use it who are
working on a competing product, for example
, SubVersion
.
There has (IMHO quite rightly)
been a lot of anger over this move.
-
-
-More information [here|http://www.bitkeeper.com/].
-
-----
-
-CategoryPolitics
+It
is not
FreeSoftware, and
does some strange things like making
all your changes/log files public unless you buy a commercial licence.
(The
idea is
that OpenSource projects
can use it without charge, but people who want to keep changes proprietary need to pay up.
) It seems to also require
you to accept any
changes to the licence whenever ~BitMover choose to make them
, and to stay upgraded
. Another contentious issue is that they changed their licence so that people working on a competing product, eg SubVersion
, cannot use it
. There has been a lot of anger over this move, probably rightly
.