[Linux-disciples] The Linux 'revolt'

[Stephen R Laniel]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 02:48:19PM -0500, Adam Rosi-Kessel wrote:
> That's the whole bitkeeper issue. Linus used to hand approve patches; now 
> the entire source tree is managed with bitkeeper and Linus has delegated 
> final approval authority over different parts of the tree to his 
> 'lieutenants.'

Ah. Thank you, sir.

I'm reading some of the flamewar now. See, e.g.,

http://shorl.com/dagigravituga

This is a pissy sort of flamewar. I hate them. One guy says
something whose meaning is pretty bloody clear -- e.g.,
Stallman writing that they should be trying to write a Free
clone of BK -- and someone else writes back along the lines
of, "Well if you think [this other thing that's not really
what the original guy had in mind], then [something bad,
like 'you're advocating fascism' or in this case, 'you're
violating our license]."

Anyway, thanks for getting me started on the right path.

-- 
Stephen R. Laniel
steve at laniels.org
+(617) 308-5571
http://laniels.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.bostoncoop.net/pipermail/linux-disciples/attachments/20050121/be60713e/attachment.pgp