From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jacob Gorm Hansen Subject: Re: Bitkeeper Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 15:18:31 -0700 Message-ID: <4255B1B7.2030403@diku.dk> References: <1112911404.7186.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1112911404.7186.75.camel@localhost.localdomain> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Paul Dorman Cc: Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Paul Dorman wrote: > Hi everyone, > > noticed a furore on Slashdot yesterday over Bitmover dropping support > for the free version of Bitkeeper. > > http://www.bitkeeper.com/press/2005-04-05.html > > You may hear the "I told you so's" in the distance if you listen > carefully :o) I have been tracking Xen with TLA/Arch ever since getting involved, and that has worked really fine for me. These days there is also the Ubuntu-sponsored Bazaar, which I think is mostly Arch-compatible, but with command line syntax closer to what BK and CVS users may expect. The only problem with Arch and Xen is that Arch really works best if your build-targets live in their own directory, rather being littered all over the source tree. It can be convinced to ignore all the unversioned stuff, but I think what usually happens is that Arch manages to convince its users to modify the build scripts (saves a lot of 'make clean && make's too if you do it right and makes the source tree easier to navigate) rather than the other way around. The good news is that with all these great new tools coming out, tracking an upstream code base has become a lot simpler than it used to be, making it easier for users to run with whatever system they prefer. Personally, I'll stick with TLA/Arch. Jacob