move rsync development tree to BitKeeper?

David Bolen db3l at
Sat Dec 8 08:23:48 EST 2001

> You can find a lot more information about the differences here:
> BitKeeper is not strictly Open Source, but arguably good enough.

I guess "arguably" is if you don't mind having all your metadata
logged to an open logging server?

> The proposed plan is to convert the existing repository, retaining all
> history, some time in December.  At this point CVS will become
> read-only and retain historical versions.

I'm curious at the driving force here?  You talk about switching, but
don't really mention much about why - other than to get feet wet
before using it for other projects.  So is it really the other
projects that have specific needs?

Is there specific functionality lacking in CVS that is trying to be
fixed?  At least for me, CVS is more convenient since it works will
all the open projects I use (and yeah, is easier in terms of

I don't have strong objections to a change, but as one user who does
tend to track the source tree and not just releases, I definitely
would prefer to continue to see (as you did suggest) alternative
access to the current source tree (even if only daily snapshots),
since at least for me rsync would be the only BK project I'd care
about - it's not clear I'd want to bother with the client.

-- David

 \               David Bolen            \   E-mail: db3l at  /
  |             FitLinxx, Inc.            \  Phone: (203) 708-5192    |
 /  860 Canal Street, Stamford, CT  06902   \  Fax: (203) 316-5150     \

More information about the rsync mailing list