You seem to be conflating two separate issues:
1) Source Forge is failing 2) CVS needs to be replaced
1. This may or may not be true - it seems to be working OK at the moment for me (I commit to other projects than Linuxbios - which are probably less active). But I would agree that SF is probably something that VA can't afford to continue to run...
Alternatives: Use another hosting site (savannah? find a sponsor - IBM?, OSDL? lnxi?, SiS? LANL pay for an offsite server away from the firewall?)
2. BitKeeper seems to have advantages for _vast_ fluid projects like the Linux kernel - where it is important to deal with a "patch" (something that affects a lot of different sources) as a single unit - Most kernels are made up of different patches choosen to meet the particular needs of the hardware etc). The linux kernel also has a lot of people submitting patches.
I'm not convinced that LinuxBIOS has outgrown the capabilities of CVS - but I'm not necessarily best placed to judge that - not being a committer.
The big attraction of Open Source/Free Software is, for me, having the ability to fix things myself if I want to. I use many different projects and have submitted changes to a variety of different projects over the years. Many of which I could not have predicted submitting patches to. I am deeply suspicious of a licence that forbids me from using my own resources to supply fixes to other quite separate projects. It is galling that the "first party" attempts to control relationships between the "second" and "third" parties.
Anyway, you seem to be saying that there is a problem with sourceforge so LinuxBios should not use CVS. I'm not sure about this argument.
If CVS is deemed unsatisfactory, I'm not sure that BitKeeper is the most appropriate solution to the problem.
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 16:22, ron minnich wrote:
sourceforge is really having trouble nowadays. Half my browsers think the web pages are to be downloaded for some reason; cvs updates are seeing 24-hour delays; and random outages are a daily occurence.
I've noticed that lots of high-profile projects are now mastering on bitkeeper.com, including the linux kernel and the infiniband project.
Any comments or objections to me at least looking into a move to bitkeeper.com? It has lots of advantages, not the least that it supports distributed repositories.
Anyone have anything to say about this, pro or con?
ron
Linuxbios mailing list Linuxbios@clustermatic.org http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios