| Jeff Abrahamson on Tue, 6 May 2003 09:02:06 -0400 |
|
On Mon, May 05, 2003 at 09:57:54AM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: > [32 lines, 185 words, 1089 characters] Top characters: etoasnri > > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 10:04:36PM -0400, Jeff Abrahamson wrote: > > Subversion has been getting a lot of press recently in the debian > > world as a CVS replacement > > But be wary of getting yelled at that BitKeeper is clearly superior > if you frequent lkm. ;^> But it's not free. > > Of course, the debian folks usually have good reasons for doing what > > they do, but I'm curious if anyone here has actually spent time with > > both and has any feedback. > > I've been planning to move from CVS to Subversion at work. I hadn't > heard of OpenCM, but I'll take a look at it. > > What makes you label it the only other contender over things like > Arch and Aegis? Inadequate research on my part. > > There was some slashdot discussion this past Winter suggesting OpenCM > > may be a bit more mature, and that the subversion folks have a sketchy > > history with open source. > > Not sure how that's possible, since it's the same folks who made > CVS, but... > > > http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/12/21/048202 > > I don't see anything in there describing a "sketchy history with > open source." Could you elaborate? I just looked over that link again. I must have misread something (or the archive was maliciously changed since Thursday. ;-) I can't find what I thought I'd read on that subject. My apologies for the slight on subversion's developers' history. I like the fact that OpenCM is cryptographically authenticated and such. But it doesn't seem to have as much mindshare, which, ultimately, is probably more important on the practical side. I went to a talk last year on opencm, this is how it achieved such prominence in my mind. -- Jeff Jeff Abrahamson <http://www.purple.com/jeff/> GPG fingerprint: 1A1A BA95 D082 A558 A276 63C6 16BF 8C4C 0D1D AE4B Attachment:
pgpxQ6kvX5BKl.pgp
|
|