I brought up Subversion, Bitkeeper and Perforce (see the <a href=
https://openacs.org/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0002O0&topic_id=OpenACS&topic=11>"Bitkeeper Experiences?" thread </a>) a few months ago when first laying out the new OACS.org. It wasn't a very popular suggestion to consider Bitkeeper or Perforce over CVS in the new site because neither of them are OSI compliant. But as Janine said, both offer their systems free of charge for open source projects.
<p>
Roberto's right that Subversion will probably wup both of them, for no reason other than it will be open source (Apache license). IIRC, the guys building it are some CVS gurus who got fed up with CVS' limitations. They've been working on it for two years (I think that Cygnus originally commisioned it's development). It's currently scheduled to hit 1.0 release in late May, but we all know how stringent open source projects deadlines are. The other problem with Subversion is that even with it's release, there may still be a lot of bugs with the CVS migration tools, docs, etc. They are self-hosting over there, but they are probably just dog-fooding.
<p>
Since the new OACS will be coming alive around the same time as the release, Subversion isn't ready totally ready for prime-time and people are truly interested in a compelling replacement for CVS, maybe we should consider Perforce or Bitkeeper for the time being. Everyone at aD raved about Perforce and if Bitkeeper can handle Linux development how bad can it be?
<p>
Personally, I don't care one way or the other because I'm not a hacker/geek/nerd/vinod, but it does seem like the are a whole bunch of complaints about CVS...
<p>
talli
