move to bitkeeper?
Eric W. Biederman
ebiederman at lnxi.com
Mon Jun 30 15:39:01 CEST 2003
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
More information about the coreboot