[Dev] Source Code Revision Control Infrastructure

nitin at borwankar.com nitin at borwankar.com
Thu Nov 14 15:38:00 PST 2002


You  may also want to look at Perforce (p4) www.perforce.com
Perforce is not Open Source but the founders have a policy of making it 
available at 0$ to Open Source projects.
In any case a two user server is available for 0$ download with no time 
or feature restrictions, to anyone.
 
P4 clients and servers exist on commonly known platforms (and some 
obscure ones as well ).
The Perforce web site provides scripts to import and export from/to  CVS.
Especially useful for code lines with multiple branches, p4 also 
combines all files in a bug fix  into a single, transaction
that can be undone.

Definitely worth a look.  I have used it on more than one commercial 
project.  

(P.S. I am not a sales-droid for Perforce, I know one of the founders 
from a previous life  and have been a satisfied user)

------------------------------------------------------------
The more idiot-proof you make it, the smarter the idiots get.

Nitin Borwankar
nitin at borwankar.com



Michael R. Bernstein wrote:

>On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 12:53, Wes Felter wrote:
>  
>
>>on 11/10/02 1:15 AM, Michael R. Bernstein at webmaven at lvcm.com wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Source Code Revision Control
>>>----------------------------
>>>
>>>I'll let others more qualified than myself discuss their relative
>>>merits, but there seem to be three contenders for this piece of
>>>infrastructure: 
>>>
>>>* CVS - http://www.cvshome.org/
>>>
>>>* Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
>>>
>>>* arch - http://www.fifthvision.net/open/bin/view/Arch/WebHome
>>>      
>>>
>>You omitted the most powerful choice, BitKeeper. Although its licensing is a
>>bit complex, I think it's at least worth evaluating.
>>
>>http://www.bitkeeper.com/
>>    
>>
>
>Here is a (not especially informative) arch vs. BitKeeper comparison:
>http://www.fifthvision.net/open/bin/view/Arch/BitKeeper
>
>I don't think that BitKeeper is suitable for use by the OSAF for two
>reasons, neither of them technical: the current licensing, and potential
>future licensing changes.
>
>The current licensing
>---------------------
>BitKeeper is free (gratis) only to developers who publish all the source
>code changes to the source being managed. While this isn't a barrier to
>use for the OSAF or the surrounding community, it does mean that
>proprietary developers licensing Chandler from the OSAF will be required
>to purchase a professional BK license in order to keep their changes
>private, or else they will have to mainatin their changes in an
>incompatible SCM solution.
>
>Imposing an additional burden on proprietary developers who wish to
>license Chandler's source code would seem to be incompatible with the
>OSAFs plans.
>
>Furthermore, BK's license precludes users from working on competing SCM
>systems. This seems excessive and worrisome, especially as I can imagine
>someone wanting to integrate a GUI SCM browser into Chandler.
>
>
>Potential future licensing changes
>----------------------------------
>The restriction against BK users working on any other SCM solution is a
>relatively recent change. There are no assurances that some future
>licensing change won't be even more burdensome. For this reason, I would
>be very reluctant to propose that we use any proprietary software in an
>infrastructure capacity, regardless of it's technical merits.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Michael Bernstein.
>
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
>http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>  
>


------------------------------------------------------------
The more idiot-proof you make it, the smarter the idiots get.

Nitin Borwankar
nitin at borwankar.com






More information about the Dev mailing list