* Eric W. Biederman ebiederman@lnxi.com [050106 21:01]:
"Ronald G. Minnich" rminnich@lanl.gov writes:
bitkeeper anyone? I'm using it for a lot of projects and going back to sourceforge all the time is getting annoying.
If we made regular releases bitkeeper might be an option. As it is I have extreme problems with their free license.
I wrote some scripts doing daily snapshots a while ago when OpenBIOS was using bitkeeper.
Stefan how has using arch for openbios been working?
I'm happy with it, some points:
* It combines the flexibility, distribution and enhanced functionality (like decent merge algorithms) of bitkeeper and the open source development model and licensing.
* There are .rpm and .deb packages available for all major distributions, clients for windows are also available.
* It works with wide spread communication layers such as ssh, ftp or webdav
* Due to it's distributed concept there is no "main" tree except through definition. There's no difference between a local repository and a remote one.
* Syncing from/to a CVS tree is easy as long as there's only one sync direction. The available software even intelligently pairs CVS checked in files into changesets. Patrick Mauritz set up a local freebios2 arch tree like this a while ago on openbios.org. It was a matter of less than an hour iirc.
* After the arch people were strictly focussed on a clean design they also take usability a lot more into regard these days.
* To make life easier for OpenBIOS developers we have a tight howto available at http://www.openbios.org/experience/gnuarch.html All in all it is no harder than cvs or bk if you are new to it.
* Repository browsing for the openbios arch repositories is available at http://www.openbios.org/cgi-bin/viewarch.cgi It works a lot like the well known viewcvs.
* Unlike bitkeeper I have full control over my source trees sitting on my own machine with a reliable high speed connection. No dependency on bkbits or sourceforge.net resources/bandwidth.
If you have concerns that should be met, tell me.
Stefan