From: "Brett H. Williams" <brett_williams@...>
Date: 2003-07-24T07:52:54+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org

On Jul 24, Ben Giddings wrote:
> 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.

It is quite off-topic and I hope keeping it online doesn't annoy others.
But SCM is near and dear to everyone in software so naturally many are
interested.  I've done a fair amount of investigation, and so far I've
_never_ heard of a Perforce or BitKeeper user that isn't extremely happy
with it.

Anyone out there fall into this category?

> > > 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 ?

Both Perforce and BitKeeper are commercial.  They both have licensing which
allows them to be free for "free software/open source".  You'd need to read
the licensing for each for the details.

While either would likely be fine for Rubyforge, neither is suitable at
work unless you can afford them.  We can (and do) use all kinds of truly
open source software because all our code is internal, but can't use
Perforce and BitKeeper without paying.  Maybe I'll convince them to pay
someday, but not now.

Hence my problem and my dashed hopes for Subversion :(