Hmm, the linuxworld article didn’t really say anything useful about
BitKeeper (although I’ve heard interesting things about it).
BitKeeper certainly looks interesting, but I don’t see anything that it
does that Perforce doesn’t (other than it being peer to peer vs
Perforce’s C/S model).
I also don’t necessarily see peer/peer as being a good thing for a
multi-gigabyte repository (like the company I work for has). That’s not
something you want replicated across all client’s.
Peter, I’d love to talk sbout this stuff offline if you want to continue
Perforce/BitKeeper discussions.
Either way, I think Perforce or BitKeeper would be fine choices for
RubyForge.
Cheers…
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Booth, Peter [mailto:Peter.Booth@gs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:42 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org
I recently did a brief comparative review of Subversion, Perforce, and
Bitkeeper (all touted as CVS replacements) and concluded that Bitkeeper
was more powerful. All do versioning of file renames, strong branching.
Building SCM systems is clearly very hard and I suspect that some
of the alternatives don’t completely get it.
Subversion has a novel approach to repository migration that works well
for large projects.
I’ll make one comment on this off-topic thread. It would be nice to have
a convenient place to take it off the list. One ML I used to subscribe to
had a good idea: an off-topic ML where discussions could continue without
fear of annoying people.
I don’t expect howls of agreement, but it would be remiss of me not to
suggest that a ruby-talk-ot mailing list be created.
Gavin
···
Hmm, the linuxworld article didn’t really say anything useful about
BitKeeper (although I’ve heard interesting things about it).
BitKeeper certainly looks interesting, but I don’t see anything that it
does that Perforce doesn’t (other than it being peer to peer vs
Perforce’s C/S model).
I also don’t necessarily see peer/peer as being a good thing for a
multi-gigabyte repository (like the company I work for has). That’s not
something you want replicated across all client’s.
Peter, I’d love to talk sbout this stuff offline if you want to continue
Perforce/BitKeeper discussions.
Either way, I think Perforce or BitKeeper would be fine choices for
RubyForge.
Cheers…
-----Original Message-----
From: Booth, Peter [mailto:Peter.Booth@gs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:42 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org
I recently did a brief comparative review of Subversion, Perforce, and
Bitkeeper (all touted as CVS replacements) and concluded that Bitkeeper
was more powerful. All do versioning of file renames, strong branching.
Building SCM systems is clearly very hard and I suspect that some of
the alternatives don’t completely get it.
Subversion has a novel approach to repository migration that works well
for large projects.
Peter, I’d love to talk sbout this stuff offline if you want to continue
Perforce/BitKeeper discussions.
Please keep it online… I am following your discussion.
Actually, so am I. Where I’m working we have recently decided to move some
directories around that are under CVS control, but we’re trying to figure out
how to do this while maintaining their history. This got us thinking about
CVS alternatives as well.
Either way, I think Perforce or BitKeeper would be fine choices for
RubyForge.
Isn’t BitKeeper pseudo commercial ? Won’t it affect license schemes for
ruby projects ?
Here’s where some of our investigation led:
···
On Wed July 23 2003 5:28 pm, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:05:23 +0900, Bennett, Patrick wrote:
Please keep it online… I am following your discussion.
Actually, so am I. Where I’m working we have recently decided to move some
directories around that are under CVS control, but we’re trying to figure out
how to do this while maintaining their history. This got us thinking about
CVS alternatives as well.
My current repository-snapshot takes up 4.2 Mbytes!!
Peter, I’d love to talk sbout this stuff offline if you want to continue
Perforce/BitKeeper discussions.
Please keep it online… I am following your discussion.
Actually, so am I. Where I’m working we have recently decided to move some
directories around that are under CVS control, but we’re trying to figure out
how to do this while maintaining their history. This got us thinking about
CVS alternatives as well.
It is quite off-topic and I hope keeping it online doesn’t annoy others.
But SCM is near and dear to everyone in software so naturally many are
interested. I’ve done a fair amount of investigation, and so far I’ve never heard of a Perforce or BitKeeper user that isn’t extremely happy
with it.
Anyone out there fall into this category?
Either way, I think Perforce or BitKeeper would be fine choices for
RubyForge.
Isn’t BitKeeper pseudo commercial ? Won’t it affect license schemes for
ruby projects ?
Both Perforce and BitKeeper are commercial. They both have licensing which
allows them to be free for “free software/open source”. You’d need to read
the licensing for each for the details.
While either would likely be fine for Rubyforge, neither is suitable at
work unless you can afford them. We can (and do) use all kinds of truly
open source software because all our code is internal, but can’t use
Perforce and BitKeeper without paying. Maybe I’ll convince them to pay
someday, but not now.
Hence my problem and my dashed hopes for Subversion
···
On Jul 24, Ben Giddings wrote:
On Wed July 23 2003 5:28 pm, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:05:23 +0900, Bennett, Patrick wrote:
Well, I used Perforce at a client’s site for a while, and it usually just
made me gag. Some of that may have had to do with (a) how the client
insisted that it be used, and (b) the fact we were using Eclipse and
refactoring out the wazoo. OTOH, I think some of it was just that it made
some assumptions about how I ought to develop that I fundamentally disagreed
with. Obviously some folks like it, which means either (a) they know more
about how to use it than I do, (b) they, too, would disagree with me about
how I ought to develop, or, most likely, (c) both of the above.
Bitkeeper I haven’t tried, but I’ve heard good things about it and would
like to give it a test drive some day.
I’ve been considering subversion as an “anything’s better than CVS”
alternative, although the reports of database corruption and difficult setup
are discouraging.
Oh, and don’t forget Stellation, being worked on as an Eclipse sub-project.
I don’t know what its status is, and I haven’t used it, but it sounds
interesting (Archived Projects | The Eclipse Foundation).
Before this thread I’d never even heard of Meta-CVS… I have to go check it
out.
It is quite off-topic and I hope keeping it online doesn’t
annoy others. But SCM is near and dear to everyone in
software so naturally many are interested. I’ve done a fair
amount of investigation, and so far I’ve never heard of a
Perforce or BitKeeper user that isn’t extremely happy with it.
and upload the tar file after you’ve tweaked your directory structure as
you see fit and I’ll move it into your project’s CVSROOT. I went thru a
similar procedure with RMagick and all appears well:
You’d have to be very careful about the licensing. For example, if you
use BitKeeper, you may have signed away your ability to work on any
competing project. (See Stallman’s recent troll in LKML, and Larry McVoy’s
replies.) And SCM written in Ruby would be cool. IANAL.
···
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:52:54 +0900, Brett H. Williams wrote:
Both Perforce and BitKeeper are commercial. They both have licensing
which allows them to be free for “free software/open source”. You’d
need to read the licensing for each for the details.
Bitkeeper I haven’t tried, but I’ve heard good things about it and would
like to give it a test drive some day.
I’ve been considering subversion as an “anything’s better than CVS”
alternative, although the reports of database corruption and difficult setup
are discouraging.
Oh, and don’t forget Stellation, being worked on as an Eclipse sub-project.
I don’t know what its status is, and I haven’t used it, but it sounds
interesting (Archived Projects | The Eclipse Foundation).
Before this thread I’d never even heard of Meta-CVS… I have to go check it
out.
Why is it that nobody ever mentions Aegis when this topic comes up?
Both Perforce and BitKeeper are commercial. They both have licensing
which allows them to be free for “free software/open source”. You’d
need to read the licensing for each for the details.
You’d have to be very careful about the licensing. For example, if you
use BitKeeper, you may have signed away your ability to work on any
competing project. (See Stallman’s recent troll in LKML, and Larry
McVoy’s
Can you post links, please? If it is not too much of a burden, of course. I
am not a subscriber to LKML, but would be interested in reading it.
···
----- Original Message -----
From: “Tom Felker” tcfelker@mtco.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:52:54 +0900, Brett H. Williams wrote:
replies.) And SCM written in Ruby would be cool. IANAL.
You’d have to be very careful about the licensing. For example, if you
use BitKeeper, you may have signed away your ability to work on any
competing project. (See Stallman’s recent troll in LKML, and Larry
McVoy’s reply.)
Can you post links, please? If it is not too much of a burden, of course. I
am not a subscriber to LKML, but would be interested in reading it.
