Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed *notrademarkhere* clone

[Jeff Garzik]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>
>> My counter-question is, why not improve an _existing_ open source SCM 
>> to read and write BitKeeper files?  Why do we need yet another brand 
>> new project?
>>
> 
> I don't disagree with that.  However, the question you posited was 
> "would one be useful", and I think the answer is unequivocally yes. 

Ok, I'll grant that.  :)

I think a BK clone is detrimental to the overall open source SCM world, 
is my main point.  I was thinking more along the lines of "useful to 
'the cause'" ;-)

> Furthermore, I don't agree with the "compatibility == bad" assumption I 
> read into your message.

Well, I disagree with that assumption too :)  My main objection is that 
a BK clone would divert attention from another effort (such as OpenCM), 
with the end result that neither the BK clone nor OpenCM are as good (or 
better) than BitKeeper.

>> AFAICS, a BK clone would just further divide resources and mindshare.  
>> I personally _want_ an open source SCM that is as good as, or better, 
>> than BitKeeper.  The open source world needs that, and BitKeeper needs 
>> the competition.  A BK clone may work with BitKeeper files, but I 
>> don't see it ever being as good as BK, because it will always be 
>> playing catch-up.
> 
> 
> Yes.  Personally, I've spent quite a bit of time with OpenCM after a 
> suggestion from Ted T'so.  It's looking quite promising to me, although 
> I haven't yet used it to maintain a large project.

Interesting...  Here's the link, in case others want to check it out:

	http://www.opencm.org/