[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] gnu arch revision control system
|
From: |
Chad Walstrom |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] gnu arch revision control system |
|
Date: |
Thu, 23 Sep 2004 14:17:54 -0500 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
J C Lawrence wrote:
> Similar can be said in favour of BitKeeper with the addition of MUCH
> better merge tools than either Arch or Subversion along with a large
> host of other developer-centric niceties.
IIRC, BitKeeper is not a viable option for people who hack on CVS, GNU
Arch, OpenCM, or similar Open Source or Free Software projects. That's
a very convincing argument to stay away from it, IMHO. It may be the
greatest software in the world, but if barriers exist -- if only moral
ones -- it may not be seen as usable.
BitKeeper isn't exactly decentralized, by the way. If you don't
purchase the BitKeeper server for your own internal use, your statistics
are reported back to the central BK server.
--
Chad Walstrom <address@hidden> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature