* J?rg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [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
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
