Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

bitkeeper.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 309 posts

Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

#21

Post by tommoor »

luckydude wrote: post #11
desdiv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wouldn't, unless you have very specific niche needs. They're pretty upfront about it: >Why use BitKeeper when there are lots of great alternatives? >For many projects, the answer is: you shouldn’t. https://www.bitkeeper.org/why.html

Probably the single biggest reason, aside from it's easier to use than git's CLI, is that it has sub-modules that work exactly like files do in a repository. No extra options, just clone/pull/push/commit/etc. Full on distributed workflow. BitKeeper itself is a collection of repositories. Download an install image, install, and clone it: $ bk clone http://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix $ cd bugfix $ bk here PRODUCT default $…

Feature set wise this has a number of great advantages over git! It's a shame all of the tools today are so git-centric in some ways

Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

#22

Post by tubelite »

gadders wrote: post #17
dsr_ wrote: post #9

For people who don't know the history -- McVoy offered free bitkeeper licenses to various open source projects, and the Linux kernel switched to it. After Andrew Tridgell (SAMBA, among other projects) reverse-engineered the bitkeeper protocol [1] in order to create his own client, the license was rescinded for everyone. As a result, Linus wrote git. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

As I remember it, it was a bit of a douche move by Tridgell, driven by a Stallman-like free software ideology.

As I remember it, he did

telnet bk-server 5000

and typed "help".

https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

#23

Post by khrm »

gadders wrote: post #17
dsr_ wrote: post #9

For people who don't know the history -- McVoy offered free bitkeeper licenses to various open source projects, and the Linux kernel switched to it. After Andrew Tridgell (SAMBA, among other projects) reverse-engineered the bitkeeper protocol [1] in order to create his own client, the license was rescinded for everyone. As a result, Linus wrote git. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

As I remember it, it was a bit of a douche move by Tridgell, driven by a Stallman-like free software ideology.

It wasn't. He gave conclusive reply which established that it's ethical (just telneting and help). Unless you believe samba and everything else is unethical and you club every reverse engineering under one umbrella, your comment is wrong. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/14/torvalds_attacks_tri...

Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

#24

Post by Mizza »

gadders wrote: post #17
dsr_ wrote: post #9

For people who don't know the history -- McVoy offered free bitkeeper licenses to various open source projects, and the Linux kernel switched to it. After Andrew Tridgell (SAMBA, among other projects) reverse-engineered the bitkeeper protocol [1] in order to create his own client, the license was rescinded for everyone. As a result, Linus wrote git. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

As I remember it, it was a bit of a douche move by Tridgell, driven by a Stallman-like free software ideology.

I don't think it's fair to call people douches because they are committed to their moral principals. Especially so here, where the benefit to humanity over the alternative is so clearly obvious.

Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

#25

Post by gadders »

tubelite wrote: post #22
gadders wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I remember it, it was a bit of a douche move by Tridgell, driven by a Stallman-like free software ideology.

As I remember it, he did telnet bk-server 5000 and typed "help". https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

That's the "how" not the "why".

Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

#26

Post by jordigh »

dsr_ wrote: post #9

For people who don't know the history -- McVoy offered free bitkeeper licenses to various open source projects, and the Linux kernel switched to it. After Andrew Tridgell (SAMBA, among other projects) reverse-engineered the bitkeeper protocol [1] in order to create his own client, the license was rescinded for everyone. As a result, Linus wrote git. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

> As a result, Linus wrote git.

And mpm wrote hg, never forget:

http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0504.2/0670.html

http://lwn.net/Articles/151624/

Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source

#27

Post by sspiff »

gadders wrote: post #17
dsr_ wrote: post #9

For people who don't know the history -- McVoy offered free bitkeeper licenses to various open source projects, and the Linux kernel switched to it. After Andrew Tridgell (SAMBA, among other projects) reverse-engineered the bitkeeper protocol [1] in order to create his own client, the license was rescinded for everyone. As a result, Linus wrote git. [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/132938/

As I remember it, it was a bit of a douche move by Tridgell, driven by a Stallman-like free software ideology.

> a Stallman-like free software ideology

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Post reply on HN