[OpenAFS-devel] A few questions about the current Linux implementation of the AFS client

[Russ Allbery]

Derrick J Brashear <shadow@dementia.org> writes:
> On 18 Jan 2002, Derek Atkins wrote:

>> Have you considered changing over to using bitkeeper instead of CVS?
>> Then individual developers could have their own local repositories and
>> make local deltas, and then they could set up their changesets to
>> openafs-gatekeepers.  When you apply a changeset users could pull it
>> down into their own repositories.

>> It would give developers the chance to make local "commits" for change
>> history during development without requiring access to the global
>> repository.

> At minimum, there are licensing issues with BitKeeper to consider; I
> assume we also need to re-export to a CVS tree to continue to provide
> anoncvs.

Personally, I'm watching Subversion very closely.  Their mission is to
release a much better CVS, they don't have the licensing problems that
Bitkeeper has, and they have a commitment to CVS compatibility that I
don't believe arch has.

I'm not sure how well they handle the distributed repository thing,
though.  Bitkeeper change sets are very nice (arch also does something
similar).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>