From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 7 03:41:20 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDE316A4CE for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 03:41:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0315B43D2D for ; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 03:41:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from rodrigc@crodrigues.org) Received: from h00609772adf0.ne.client2.attbi.com ([66.30.114.143]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <2004110703411901600120l4e>; Sun, 7 Nov 2004 03:41:19 +0000 Received: from h00609772adf0.ne.client2.attbi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) iA73fEY6057919 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:41:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rodrigc@h00609772adf0.ne.client2.attbi.com) Received: (from rodrigc@localhost)iA73fEKh057914 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:41:14 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from rodrigc) Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 22:41:14 -0500 From: Craig Rodrigues To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20041107034114.GA56337@crodrigues.org> References: <418C0EED.1060301@freebsd.org> <87oeibnp4r.fsf@beeblebrox.rfc1149.net> <20041106150625.GA84763@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <47528984.20041106165510@andric.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47528984.20041106165510@andric.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: FreeBSD 6.0 and onwards X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 03:41:20 -0000 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@ 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 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? :) -- Craig Rodrigues http://crodrigues.org rodrigc@crodrigues.org