Bitkeeper, the universe, and everything
Posted Feb 24, 2004 17:19 UTC (Tue) by dh
In reply to: Centralized vs decentralized
Parent article: subversion 1.0 is released
Larry??? Is it you???
Well, no-one here actually talked about Bitkeeper so far. Knowing CVS and
having read about Bitkeeper, it's clear to me (and should be clear to
anyone else having similar experiences) that there are lightyears of
difference between those two regarding capabilities - and possible
working sets. We just learned that Subversion is "CVS done correctly", so
this comparison stands for Subversion the same.
Everyone digging a little bit into capabilities of revision control
should see that
(a) the huge difference is "one repository - many repositories" and
(b) a system granting "many repositories" can always emulate a system
managing only one repository.
Because of (b), I cannot follow those who claim arch being inferior to
subversion due to not having a centralized repository. For me, it seems
as if those people haven't fully understood the concepts.
Anyway, comparing Bitmover to CVS or Subversion or any other
single-repository-system is like comparing steam engines to moon rockets.
It's boring, because you know the results... For me, a comparison between
Bitkeeper and, say, arch would be much more interesting.
Most interesting, of course, if it comes from a person neither involved
with Bitmover nor with arch...
to post comments)