So long and thanks for all the fish

Hi all,

I assume that, as a single developer who pays his way by working in a 
liquor store, I will not be able to afford a BitKeeper licence.  So it's 
back to the Dark Ages of CVS for me, and SourceForge, where I can't even 
get a project name change.

I've read the NewsForge story on the split with the Linux developers, 
but from what BitMover has said about support costs and development 
focus, this was inevitable anyway.  It was simply costing BitMover too 
much to support the OS development users.  Is this a fair assessment? 
Or should I call curses down on the head of a certain individual?

I have egg on my face because I recently urged the Apache FOP developers 
(where I am still nominally a committer) to consider BitKeeper instead 
of a move to Subversion.  That doesn't alter the fact that bk is the 
best SCM I have ever used, by far.  Thanks for the experience.

Peter
--
Peter B. West <http://cv.pbw.id.au/>
Folio <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/folio/> <http://folio.bkbits.net/>