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





--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to