> Patrik Stridvall <psÉleissner.se> writes:
>
> > Since we currently can't check in the changes the situation for
> > every Wine developer will be exactly the same, with the exception
> > that developers now can check in the changes to the appropriate
> > workgroup if he is prepared to accept the privacy violation.
>
> You can't commit directly to the main tree, but you can perfectly have
> your own local tree today without the whole world knowing about
> it. And maintaining a local tree is precisely something that is
> somewhat painful with CVS and that bitkeeper is supposed to be good
> at.
Yes. However even if the main Wine server switch to BitKeeper you
can still have a local CVS server. I don't imagine that will be more
painful than if the main Wine server was CVS.
So you now have three choices
1. Your pain: Use a local CVS server
2. Your privacy: Use a local BitKeeper server
3. Your money: Use a local BitKeeper server. Pay BitKeeper.
Actually you have a fourth choice.
4. Your honor: Use a local BitKeeper server.
Disable logging in the source.
Of course 4 would violate the license...
Seriously, the point is that the each developer will not any way
be worse of, neither in pain, privacy or money than with the
current situation.
I think that our needs will be much better served by using BitKeeper,
especially after 1.0. Maintaining both a stable and an unstable
version are going to be a major pain otherwise.
