| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
alternativesalternativesPosted Nov 24, 2003 20:20 UTC (Mon) by stevenj (guest, #421)In reply to: What Linus can use if Bitkeeper goes away by BrucePerens Parent article: Linus & the Lunatics, Part I (Linux Journal) There are also other alternatives being developed with similar features, e.g. darcs.
(Log in to post comments)
alternatives (monotone) Posted Nov 24, 2003 22:21 UTC (Mon) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] Or something like monotone.It feels very mature already. Comes with a nice manual, imports your old rcs/cvs repositories easily, has patch authentication and comes with a Debian package. Nice comparisons between the above systems and arch:
alternatives (monotone) Posted Nov 25, 2003 6:23 UTC (Tue) by docolczyk (guest, #14874) [Link] Which of these SCM ( including BitKeeper ) use a copy/merge systemas opposed to the semistandard check-in/check-out system? I stick to CVS because I find copy/merge the single most important How about real client/server systems. This time it was me that was
alternatives (monotone) Posted Nov 25, 2003 9:11 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] go look at bitkeeper, you do copy/merge at the repository level, not at the file level you are used to doing with CVS. instead each developer has their own entire repository and you merge back and forth between them
alternatives (monotone) Posted Dec 11, 2003 10:50 UTC (Thu) by docolczyk (guest, #14874) [Link] I took a very brief look at bitkeeper then quickly ran away.Lately I've been hearing some nasty comments about it's licensing. So I checked that out first. The liccense ( of the free version )could only be viewed after you downloaded and installed the software. To me that just sent upn too many red flags. Any oninions on the elternatives?
|
|
||||||||||||