move to bitkeeper?

[Eric W. Biederman]

ron minnich <rminnich at lanl.gov> writes:

> 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. 

Agreed.  So something needs to be done.
 
> 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?

A significant con is that with the zero dollar license a developer
cannot work on source code control projects.  Which is a stiff
imposition.  The kernel avoids problems of this nature by with
regular releases and a patch submission process that does not
require you to use bk.  We don't have the infrastructure in place
to do that.

Subversion has the problem that it is not a distributed version
control system.  CVS isn't either but it is well understood.

With LANL potentially being behind a government firewall Ron I don't
think it makes sense for you to host a CVS sever correct?

We probably want to accumulate a list of other sites like sourceforge.
One is http://berlios.de

Eric