[gentoo-dev] Re: CVS alternatives -- meta-cvs

[Ryan Phillips]

* J?rg Schaible <joerg.schaible@×××.de> [2004-01-28 10:30]:
> Dan Armak wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 28 January 2004 03:21, J?rg Schaible wrote:
> >> But if you have the impression, that it is not ready yet (although they
> >> are self-hosting for years), you could also take a look at Perforce
> >> (www.perforce.com). It is already in portage. Although it is commercial
> >> and closed source, it is free for OSS development [...]
> > Our social contract says "Gentoo Linux will never depend upon a piece of
> > software unless it conforms to... some license approved by the Open Source
> > Initiative (OSI.)".
> > Even if you read that to mean only what users have to use and not
> > developers, I for one very much don't want to have to use non-free
> > software to develop with Gentoo.
> >
> > Besides, the Perforce terms are that you have to sign a license agreement
> > to get these free licenses, and the agreement is good for one year. Every
> > year they give you a new agreement to sign, and there are no rules on how
> > they may change these agreements. I'd not want to bind Gentoo to something
> > like that.
>
> Well, my point was: Don't use software (MCVS) that has meanwhile more than
> one compatibility wrappers to solve problems that are based in the
> architecture of the underlaying system. While I know Perforce (and its
> reliability) quite well and I know it is used in OSS development, I just
> want at least have spent a comment on it. If you consider the usage terms
> as evil, well, that's fine with me, but then take a really serious look at
> the "second" best solution.
>
> As mensioned Subversion is self-hosting since more than a year now and also
> used in the wild. Its architecture is somewhat similar to Perforce and it
> is made by people, that learned from developing CVS.
>
> I also had a look at arch some time ago, but AFAICS it was a bunch of
> scripts and small apps working together. And when I looked at the former
> two main developers flaming each other I was really upset how someone could
> even consider using this peace of software, since my imression was, that
> none of them would be really capable of creating a community around their
> code. And that's IMHO the main risk.
>
> Regards,
> J?rg
>

The latest revision of arch is tla which is written in C.

-r