Andreas Schuldei asked in lkml if there was an easy a way for BitKeeper to backport stuff from the 2.5 to the 2.4 repositories. Like so many discussions, this rapidly veered off; from keeping separate BK repositories in sync, to the limitations of BitKeeper.

Much of the resulting discussion follows.

When Linux creator Linus Torvalds began using the BitKeeper (BK) source control tool for managing the 2.5 Linux development kernel [earlier story], one of the big fears people put forward was that all Linux kernel developers would eventually be forced to use this tool. (The BK license is a major source of contention.

Earlier this year, Linus agreed to test out BitKeeper, Larry McVoy's source management tool. Its non-open-source licensing has lead to a fury of protest and discussion.

James Simmons announced innocently enough on the lkml, "Just to let you know I created a bitkeeper repository for the framebuffer layer." M. R. Brown replied a couple hours later, "Please tell us that primary framebuffer/input/console development will continue in the CVS drop-in tree on SourceForge? "

Linus' earlier decision to test the BitKeeper source management tool with the 2.5 kernel tree has continued to create wakes of dissent. One group went so far as to start a petition against the usage of the tool, saying "We, the undersigned members and officers of the Open Source Club at the Ohio State University, are unhappy with the advocacy of the proprietary[1] BitKeeper software for use in maintaining the Linux kernel." Details on the BitKeeper licenses that so many are opposed to can be found