From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-07-24T11:12:42+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] subversion, was [ANN] RubyForge.org

I'll make one comment on this off-topic thread.  It would be nice to have
a convenient place to take it off the list.  One ML I used to subscribe to
had a good idea: an off-topic ML where discussions could continue without
fear of annoying people.

I don't expect howls of agreement, but it would be remiss of me not to
suggest that a ruby-talk-ot mailing list be created.

Gavin


> 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