> You can find a lot more information about the differences here: > > http://bitkeeper.com/4.1.1.html > > BitKeeper is not strictly Open Source, but arguably good enough.
I guess "arguably" is if you don't mind having all your metadata logged to an open logging server? > The proposed plan is to convert the existing repository, retaining all > history, some time in December. At this point CVS will become > read-only and retain historical versions. I'm curious at the driving force here? You talk about switching, but don't really mention much about why - other than to get feet wet before using it for other projects. So is it really the other projects that have specific needs? Is there specific functionality lacking in CVS that is trying to be fixed? At least for me, CVS is more convenient since it works will all the open projects I use (and yeah, is easier in terms of licensing). I don't have strong objections to a change, but as one user who does tend to track the source tree and not just releases, I definitely would prefer to continue to see (as you did suggest) alternative access to the current source tree (even if only daily snapshots), since at least for me rsync would be the only BK project I'd care about - it's not clear I'd want to bother with the client. -- David /-----------------------------------------------------------------------\ \ David Bolen \ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / | FitLinxx, Inc. \ Phone: (203) 708-5192 | / 860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT 06902 \ Fax: (203) 316-5150 \ \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
