Re: Revision control systems [Was: I broke the build]

[Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>]

Adam Megacz wrote:

>Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>
>>Another is that ChangeLog records all changes, not just changes to a
>>given file.  To get the same information out of cvs you have to write
>>a special script (AFAIK).
>>
>
>Ah, is this because cvs doesn't understand changesets?
>
>BTW, I'm trying to decide on a revision control system for
>XWT... right now it's looking like arch or bitkeeper... does anybody
>have any comments on the relitave merits?
>
>I like the fact that arch is GPL, small-and-simple, and doesn't have
>wierd you-must-send-us-your-changelogs requirements. OTOH, arch can't
>tunnel through ssh (passwords in the clear via ftp == bad), and it's
>written mostly in sh, which really creeps me out. Now that Linus is
>using bitkeeper, I guess I can expect lots of people to be familiar
>with it.
>
>Anybody here used either one?
>

I used bitkeeper for a while for the LinuxPPC kernel. I found it pretty 
slow and difficult to use in comparison to CVS (but then I'm probibly 
biased due to familiarity with CVS). Change sets and file move/rename 
are certainly good but other than that it seems to have a lot of complex 
features which I could never imagine using.

If you want other developers to use your tree I'd reccomend CVS simply 
because its what everyone has, knows, and understands.

regards

Bryce.