Linus Tries Out BitKeeper 248
Flammon writes: "Linus has been overloaded
with patches for a while and recently the issue started to become hot again. In an unprecedented move, Linus has started using BitKeeper, as reported by Linux Today. The benefits of BitKeeper are already showing from the large amount of detail provided in the latest unstable kernel pre-release." eirikref adds: "Read Linus' own statement and take a look at the BK web interface."
Re:But surely (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep the terse changelogs (Score:3, Insightful)
For L-K and releases a terse format is appropriate, but I think that keeping the longer ones around somewhere can help some of us newbies understand what the heck is going on in there.
Re:But surely (Score:3, Insightful)
BitKeeper??? (Score:2, Insightful)
ChangeLog detail (Score:2, Insightful)
Can it really be a bad thing to have too much information about any changes?
Re:Which is Best? (Score:3, Insightful)
If CVS works for you, and you have no complaints or issues, then don't switch.
If you find yourself 1)wanting features, 2)overwhelmed by inadequacies, or 3)working too hard to accomplish default behavior in other systems (ex scripting what is handled automagically in others), then investigate changing.
Re:But surely (Score:5, Insightful)
I use CVS all the time, but I know its limitations. Linus was right when he decided not to use CVS, it simply is not reliable enough. But don't blame CVS, it is a good and useful tool; but every tool has its safe zone of "recommended use", and Linux kernel is way beyond that. I say, any project above 50 KLOCs and with 100 revisions on average would be pushing the limits.
Re:Linus not getting enough respect (Score:1, Insightful)
posting anonymously because slashdot editors have made it clear they don't tolerate dissent.
Re:The most important point here is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, at least he runs Linux...
Re:ChangeLog detail (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, when the information is so detailed that you can't cut through the BS to find the meat. Some people just want a brief list to skim in order to decide if it's worth downloading or not.
Re:Quick question ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Bitkeeper's license isn't GPL, nor do I think that it's been certified as an 'Open Source' license by Eric Raymond's definition. However, it's got some interesting features that are as interesting and powerful as the GPL, and that even work in the public interest.
You can get it for free (as in beer) and it says that it will revert to GPL if they go out of business (eg, their OpenLogging servers go down for more than 180 days)... which is an interesting clause that ensures that 'abandonware' becomes a public resource.
The one scary part is that you MUST submit metadata to their OpenLogging system, or pay money for a 'closed use' license. Now before you hurl, consider... all open source projects already have all their metadata (and all their source too!) out in the open!
Is this really so bad? People who don't want to share, have to pay... it sounds like it's punishing institutions that don't produce open source with Bitkeeper (individual use is exempt). Richard Stallman might be pleased!
Apart from that, the only other funny part of the license that I see, is you lose your license if you sue BitMover over intellectual property rights. I'm not sure what to make of that, I guess it's a way to cover their own butts. I'd be upset if Microsoft had it in their license, but here, it seems appropriate.
So while they aren't using the GPL or a BSD license or the Artistic license or any other common, popular OSS license, they ARE going out of their way to work with developers and users instead of exploiting them. That's a far cry from Microsoft or even 'linux-friendly' software companies like Oracle. They've found (even more) ways to write software and work with the public, without giving away the shop.
I'd say, on the whole, two thumbs up.
Re:Linus not getting enough respect (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree, he deserves respect, however the linux user and open source community cant afford to just wait until Linux gets around to reviewing everything and decides to put it in at his leasure anymore. The patches, new features, and demand is too great.
Its about time Linus got some kind of source control - however I DID note that the only one who has access to it is Linux himself, which doesnt exactly make it helpful
Heres hoping
Free vs. Open Source positions (Score:3, Insightful)
The Open Source Software movement says, "Use the best software. That will often be Free / Open Source software."
The devil must have had to put on a sweater (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like the new change logs, I have always hated the old change logs as being too uninformative. One of the really interesting things for me about a source code control system is that it preserves a lot more of the history of the source code than the tar balls do.
It is also really cool how it branches the source for every patch and checks in the code with the users name as the one who checked it in and the body of the email as the comment. If Linus can find a way to also check in his rejected comments on a patch then that will also be very useful. It would be interesting to capture a little bit of the why instead of just the how in the kernel development process.
To apply a patch you just have to merge the branch that contains the patch back into the main development branch, fix any conflicts, compile, fix it so it works right and then commit.
And Linus will never lose another patch again, they will be saved for all time in the source tree under a seperate branch.
Once Linux lets his inner sanctum of kernel developers all start merging approved patches into his main branch then we will see the kernel development really speed up.
Thanks!
Re:crappy license (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they did it to force you to decide if you want to be part of the Free Software/Open Source community or not. It's annoying to me as well when I can't have my cake and eat it too, but I don't complain about the people that make cakes :)
It's just like the GPL - the license is a means to form and defend the community for the good of the community. If you don't like it, that's OK too, but don't say that those community-maintaining features are the problem. They're a feature, not a bug.
Re:Bad news (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus and the maintainers will still accept patches in email, so nothing's changed except Linus now has a tool that is likely to help him keep up the extremely high productivity.
And, using non-free software to manage the development of free software doesn't make the free software any less free. It's not like it could only be compiled by a non-free compiler.
Maybe this means that those who write free software will next write a tool even better than BitKeeper and the world will be once more a little better place.
Re:I know it's off topic... but I gotta know (Score:3, Insightful)
I have yet to see a major new device class, file system class, or other subsystem that didn't require patching. That's a problem with the Linux kernel--it simply lacks the hooks and mechanisms for doing this. And it will only get addressed if the kernel developers start making a commitment to shipping drivers and other modules separately from the main kernel, with their own version numbers and source trees. As long as people can patch easily, they are never going to add the hooks to the kernel that will let new functionality get added without patching.
Re:Bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? I find it interesting.
There's is absolutely NOTHING wrong with charging for software. If you do nothing but write software for work, you have a reasonable expectation to make a living off it. The world doesn't run off charity man, nothing is free.
To me, the "pearl of Free Software" being version controlled by a commercial product is a grand statement.. that free software and commercial software can coexist peacefully.
Software "should" only be free as in speech anyways. If it's simultaneously free beer that's just icing on the cake.
Re:Bad news (Score:3, Insightful)
to say "See? Free software isn't viable on it own. The only reason it's any good at all is that is relies on commercial software"
Or the more subtle "Sure, Linux was okay before. But it only got good once they started using commercial software to develop it"
It could help reinforce the stereotype of free software as "hobby" projects - "Oh sure, you can use free software tools to develop some simple CGI script or napster clone, but if you want to make a serious software project, you need to use commercial tools"
(Not that I believe this, but that is what might be argued)
Re:Bad news (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll let that self-referential statement stand on its own merits!
Look, if I spend all of my time coming up with "ideas", I have to use them as my source of income; if I can't, I have to find some other source of income, which means I'm not spending any time coming up with those ideas anymore.
Logical. No argument with that. So you can be compensated for the time that you spend doing that through an income that is tied to your production of freely re-distributable ideas. That's the academic model. You work on producing ideas and get a secure, stable life with good benefits.
Or, you could be employed by a company like RedHat. They make money from support/service and use a portion of that to give jobs to talented hackers.
Or, working as a professional software development you can give away some of your time because it increases your standing in the community, raises your profile and in turn attracts employers who wish to pay you for proprietary, non-Free work.
In other words, for decent software to be developed at anything other than a glacial pace, people have to be able to devote time to it, and they have to be compensated for that time in a way that allows them to eat, live under a roof, etc.
In other words, there are several ways in which Free Software is already being developed and in which the developers quite rightly get the food, housing, etc. that you so rightly assert they have the right to be rewarded with. So what's the argument? I would suspect that it is that you are tilting against some fantasy windmill of communist free software.
No flame intended on my side. I just think that you don't get it and that you're arguing against some pre-conceived imaginary position.
Re:change (Score:4, Insightful)
I also used to think like this. The sum extent of my source control was cp -r currrent vX.x. Source control was for wimps.
I'm of a rather different view today. I now utterly insist on using it, even in tiny little things that I think are one-offs at the time (quite often it turns out they aren't).
I think I can understand Linus' dislike. It sounds like you're less free, and as if the whole coding thing is suddenly less enjoyable. However, having gone through exactly the same feelings I can say that in my case it certainly isn't true that things are less enjoyable. In fact, in some ways it's easier as I can go wandering off in my own direction for a while, before hitting a dead end and backtracking safe in the knowledge that I have a defined state to fall back on should I need to.
Personally, I'd recommend taking the plunge. Some [cvs.org] systems [rational.com] are better than others [microsoft.com], but any system use injects a bit more organisation and confidence into the process of coding.
Cheers,
Ian
Does this really matter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Will there be public read-only access to Linus' branch so people can keep up with the latest?
Re:But surely (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, XFree86,
all of which are orders of magnitude larger than the linux kernel. All of them have been using CVS for the past 8-10 years (depending on how you count things). Sure, cvs has its limitations, but the Linux kernel with its small number of developers with write access isn't pushing the limits. FreeBSD has over 250 people committing to its tree right now, for example.
Re:Which is Best? (Score:2, Insightful)