Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

[Tupshin Harper]

Samium Gromoff wrote:

> At 14 Nov 2003 16:38:37 +0900,
> Miles Bader wrote:
>  
>
> > David Brown <address@hidden> writes:
> >    
> >
> > > I've sure seen complaints about people not being able to use BK and
> > > asking for something.  CVS was probably chosen because it is 'standard'
> > > and exists, but the demand is definitely influenced by people not
> > > wanting, or not able to use BK.
> > >      
> > I think another factor was that LM considers CVS `safe', as it's crappy
> > enough to not really be much of a threat to BK saleswise.  For this
> > reason, it seems unlikely he'd make an arch gateway, even if the benefit
> > to users was very high.
> >    
>
> So far i don`t see enough articulation of that issue.
>
> This makes me think that "we don`t care about saving the extended metadata
> in a free software way" is a dominating idea on lkml.
>  
I've found myself to be the only one expressing that need, both on the 
list and privately to Larry. While it has potential value to arch, I 
think it's more fundamentally important in general to have that 
granularity of information freely available. I believe that anyone that 
is willing to abide by the BK license is able to export the complete 
changeset information, so the hurdle isn't too large to get there...it 
would be wonderful if kernel.org would host it.

-Tupshin