Personally, I think the concept of a changelist is critical (or
changeset as BitKeeper calls them).
That leaves out CVS, SubVersion, Meta-CVS, etc.
Oh btw, did I mention that Perforce has a Ruby API ?
I used it when creating the extensive set of scripts needed to model our
rather convoluted build/release/codeline process.
I’m not sure of the line count, but there’s about 260KB of Ruby scripts
wrapping our Perforce commands.
The Ruby API is a breeze to use as well (and the author maintains it on
Perforce’s own ‘public’ depot).
···
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Giddings [mailto:ben@thingmagic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 4:57 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org
On Wed July 23 2003 5:28 pm, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:05:23 +0900, Bennett, Patrick wrote:
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:
Meta-CVS:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=cf3330
42.0307181511.7b482ea%40posting.google.comhttp://users.footprints.net/~kaz/mcvs.html
That thread also links to a page with a pretty long list of
alternatives
to CVS (scroll to the bottom.)