From: Ben Giddings <ben@...>
Date: 2003-07-24T06:57:10+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org

On Wed July 23 2003 5:28 pm, Simon Strandgaard wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 07:05:23 +0900, Bennett, Patrick wrote:
> > Peter, I'd love to talk sbout this stuff offline if you want to continue
> > Perforce/BitKeeper discussions.
> 
> Please keep it online.. I am following your discussion.

Actually, so am I.  Where I'm working we have recently decided to move some 
directories around that are under CVS control, but we're trying to figure out 
how to do this while maintaining their history.  This got us thinking about 
CVS alternatives as well.

> > Either way, I think Perforce or BitKeeper would be fine choices for
> > RubyForge.  
> 
> Isn't BitKeeper pseudo commercial ?  Won't it affect license schemes for
> ruby projects ?

Here's where some of our investigation led:

*******************
>Meta-CVS:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=cf333042.0307181511.7b482ea%40posting.google.com
>
>http://users.footprints.net/~kaz/mcvs.html
>
>That thread also links to a page with a pretty long list of alternatives 
>to CVS (scroll to the bottom.)
>
>http://mindprod.com/jgloss/cvs.html