Penguin
Recent Changes

Differences between version 7 and predecessor to the previous major change of BitKeeper.

Other diffs: Previous Revision, Previous Author, 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 .