Dustin Sallings wrote:
> 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
