On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> What's he got that you don't? Offhand, it looks to me like you have
> changesets and LODs covered fairly well but you're weaker than Bitkeeper
> on the distributed-depositories front. Is that a fair summation, in your
> view?
We don't handle changesets using a formal changeset engine as BK (and some
other products I've seen) do, and it won't happen in the 1.x time frame,
so that's one big difference.
We are also "weaker" on the distributed-repositories front, but the
network performance optimizations should be enough to address most
people's concerns about latency, plus the fact that we use DAV over HTTP
should allow for caching of updates on HTTP proxies, hopefully without
even requiring changes to the proxies themselves.
There's another aspect to the distributed-repositories front, though,
which is allowing for "private" branches on another repository, and that
is a harder problem. Another thing not likely to be addressed in the 1.x
timeframe. But, I suspect that the need for it goes partially away if we
can implement some really flexible access control stuff, allowing for
user perms to be set on branches, so we emulate that distribution. I
don't know, though.
> How do I get access? Are you CVSes, or should I just download a tarball
> and ship back patches?
set your CVSROOT to :pserver:guest@cvs.tigris.org:/cvs password "guest".
Commit privs are granted based on quality of patches submitted. =)
Brian
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:23 2006