ozan s yigit <oz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > i have been interested in getting wily (all versions + 9libs) > under bitkeeper... (both tom lord and larry mcvoy are friends > but bk has been more convincing... it helps linux uses it > too...) I understand that use of the zero-cost version of bitkeeper would prevent those of us (eg me) who develop other revision control systems from using it. Not to mention the other problems I have with non-free code. Finally, is the zero-cost bk is also another central-server system? How have you found it more convincing? I think the competition will be between svn and arch (and new things, possibly) in the long term, not bk. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ jabber://slef@xxxxxxxxx Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Thought: Edwin A Abbott wrote about trouble with Windows in 1884