From: "Bennett, Patrick" <Patrick.Bennett@...>
Date: 2003-07-24T06:05:23+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org

Hmm, the linuxworld article didn't really say anything useful about
BitKeeper (although I've heard interesting things about it).
BitKeeper certainly looks interesting, but I don't see anything that it
does that Perforce doesn't (other than it being peer to peer vs
Perforce's C/S model).
I also don't necessarily see peer/peer as being a good thing for a
multi-gigabyte repository (like the company I work for has).  That's not
something you want replicated across all client's.
Peter, I'd love to talk sbout this stuff offline if you want to continue
Perforce/BitKeeper discussions.

Either way, I think Perforce or BitKeeper would be fine choices for
RubyForge.  
Cheers..

-----Original Message-----
From: Booth, Peter [mailto:Peter.Booth@gs.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:42 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org


I recently did a brief comparative review of Subversion, Perforce, and
Bitkeeper (all touted as CVS replacements) and concluded that Bitkeeper
was more powerful. All do versioning of file renames, strong branching. 
Building SCM systems is clearly very hard and I suspect that some 
of the alternatives don't completely get it.

Subversion has a novel approach to repository migration that works well
for large projects.

Peter

http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32618.htm