Re: FreeBSD 6.0 and onwards

Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> 
>>>some time ago there was a report on "using svn in fbsd developement" on
>>>hackers_at_ iirc, any news in opinions on using RCS in fbsd?
>>
>>I'll guess that they are quite satisfied using Perforce.  This is a
>>very good and supported version control system, and IMO Subversion is
>>not yet up to par with it.  Arch is quite nice, but a completely
>>different approach, seemingly better suited to de-central development
>>such as with Linux.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if everyone is throwing around ideas for their favorite
> RCS, then how about Bitkeeper?  It is quite popular
> in Linux kernel development circles, and was designed
> with distributed development in mind.  I've seen it used
> successfully for sub-projects in the Linux kernel (i.e. LK-SCTP) which
> was then merged into the main Linux kernel.
> This seems similar to how Perforce is used by FreeBSD developers.
> 
> On their website, Bitkeeper has comparisons to other systems
> (RCS, CVS, Perforce, ClearCase):
> http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.html

There is quite a bit of FUD here.  It's not surprising since the point
of the site is to promote Bitkeeper, but pointing to it is a bit like
asking Rush Limbaugh for a fair comparison of the Democrats (apologies
to those who don't care about American politics).

> 
> While it might not change anyone's mind, it is interesting
> to be aware of, especially since it is popular in Linux circles. 
> 
> Hey, if Perforce works fine, then why change it? :)
> 

Perforce was not introduced to the project by a formal decision or
discussion, it came about out of some simple and private needs, and has
grown from there.  Telling everyone that SCM FOO is the best thing and
that we should all switch doesn't foster the same kind of attitude and
acceptance.  If BK or SVN or whatever starts solving needs for
developers, then the tide might shift that way eventually.  A formal
decree simply does not work.

Scott