Re: collaborating

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 04:42:25PM -0400, Paul Lussier wrote:

OK I am kinda new too, since I read but hardly spoke. :)

> CVS is good, subversion when finished, will be better. However,
> BitKeeper has some great features that nothing else I know of has,
> commercial or otherwise! It would be great to have a free
> BitKeeper.

OK I might have missed the point in the previous mails, and I know
this is not precisely the topic here, but what exactly does BK have
that is not planned / impossible in Subversion ? Or, possibly, what
does svn have that BK doesn't ?

I'm just an open guy, I will never use BK since I cannot afford it,
and I truly support OSS and thus SVN, but I would love to know what we
are exactly talking about.

If there is any *neutral* paper on the Net comparing CVS, SVN, Arch,
BK and friends (foes?), it'd be really nice. If not, I might even be
interested in writing one actually, but I doubt I'm the first one with
the idea.

The purpose of this is not to point out "what is not in subversion",
but rather to have a global look on SCM. Maybe some projects just
don't suit SVN ?
[ I know, this might be what you are trying to avoid. ]

[ Totally off-topic, sorry : Why not set a Reply-To header in this
  mailing list ? ]

-- 
Sebastien Cevey <seb@cine7.net>
Cine7 - www.cine7.net
Milcis - www.milcis.net
ICQ: 48895760
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org