alternatives (monotone) [LWN.net]

alternatives (monotone)

Posted Nov 25, 2003 6:23 UTC (Tue) by docolczyk (guest, #14874)
In reply to: alternatives (monotone) by mjw
Parent article: Linus & the Lunatics, Part I (Linux Journal)

Which of these SCM ( including BitKeeper ) use a copy/merge system
as opposed to the semistandard check-in/check-out system?

I stick to CVS because I find copy/merge the single most important
feature. ( Having been screwed when people had things checked-out
when they took some time off on several occasions. )

How about real client/server systems. This time it was me that was
doing the screwing by deleting the repository. I prefer not to have direct
access unless I ask for it. Prevent accidental deleting that way.

(Log in to post comments)

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?