On Mar 24, 2004, at 11:45, David Garamond wrote:
So one might ask, what *will* motivate a die-hard CVS user? A real-close Bitkeeper clone? :-)
Since it's illegal for anyone who uses Bitkeeper's free license to contribute to another project, does anyone know if there are any features in Bitkeeper missing from arch (specifically tla) that matter to developers? Or is there anything that may be a better match than arch?
From what I read here and there, BitKeeper excels primarily in merging (good merging is apparently a very complex and hard problem) and GUI stuffs.
Unfortunately, I have never and will never use Bitkeeper unless someone buys me a license for some reason. The distributed model seems like the only way to go for the open source development of the future.
Not necessarily. For small to medium projects, a centralized model might work better.
-- dave
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
