alternate SCM. Was Re: [Asterisk-Dev] Linux leaves Bitkeeper: quite a dustup

[Steven Critchfield]

On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 07:32 -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> Steven wrote:
> 
> > With at least this portion of the thread showing some merit and some
> > tangential relation to this list, I'll offer up that arch be considered.
> > Specifically it is a good option for those who may be harboring private
> > change sets that either can not be contributed or would not be
> > accepted.  
> 
> Right, that is one the big reasons to consider switching in the first 
> place. Also, there is some value in being able to host a development 
> 'server' with commit permissions granted individually per-branch, 
> something that CVS/SVN/etc. cannot do. I've not yet looked at Monotone 
> or Arch (or darcs) to see how that would be handled, but it's on my 
> (long) list of things to do.

So in helping get this topic fully in the open and delegated out to
those of us in the community to start providing help, can we turn this
into a discussion of needs and what SCM fulfills the needs?

Lets define a few things. Needs are a requirement that can not be
ignored or glossed over. Wants make life nice but might be glossed over
if the needs are better served.

So far on the needs list;

Good user permission/separations per branch


Wants;

Easier maintenance of private change sets
Availability to the Mac, *BSD, and Windows groups without too many
hoops.



Add in other requirements. Also add down here some comments about how we
may best evaluate the tools without starting a holy SCM war. Then
afterwords we can divide up the checking of tools and see if it matches
the needs and wants above.
-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>