[Q] Bitkeeper vs. other SCS systems?
Currently Linus (you know, the Linux guy) and many kernel developers use it, and they're supposedly thrilled with it.
Yes, that's where I became aware of it, following the "arguments" that have been about its use on the linux kernel. AFAIK, both Linus Torvalds and Marcelo Tossatti (spelling?) (maintainer of the 2.4 kernel) use it, together with Linux/PPC people, and some others...
From what I understand, Bitkeeper does not have a central source repository, unlike most version-control systems. For distributed development like the Linux kernel, this works well. However, if you are only working in one office or computer, this functionality might be overkill. Plus, a server with your central source repository might be a risk, but it is easy to backup. How do you safely backup a distributed source repository and have peace of mind that you copied ALL the bits?
BitKeeper does use a central source repository. BitKeeper is distributed in the sense that it supports distributed development. The way in which it manages the source tree (as a set of changes) also portions of different trees to be integrated without needing to synchronize the rest of the tree, among other things.
I would suggest getting your feet wet with something like CVS, if only because there are 10^24 tutorials for it. It's also a pretty decent revision control system, but without all the complexity that heavy-duty RCS systems impose. It has the advantage of needing only about 4-5 commands and being opensource, should you be curious as to how it functions.
I think Bit Keeper is a bit too new for many people to have beat on it yet. I recently read an interview with the guy who wrote it, and he basically wrote it to support Kernel devlopment, but couldn't justify the cost w/o charging for it uinder a propriatary license. Anyway, he states that their competing against Clearcase, so if that is also on your radar screen, you may want to try out Bit Keeper as well.
As someone who mastered the basic use of BitKeeper today, I can only give a relative newbie opinion of it. BitKeeper is a commercial offering that aims to be a cutting edge source control software with many innovative and advanced features. You can use it freely as long as you don't mind that the logs are sent to a remote server. If not, you have to purchase several per seats licenses.
Re: ""This sounds like a good Ask Slashdot question... ""
From a lot of reading I've been doing on the topic, Perforce appears to be a very good choice for source control. It's very fast in general (especially over WAN's), cross-platform, robust, client-server based...on and on. The standalone UI for Windows could use some improvement, but the SCC integration works well. I hate to sound like a newbie, but I tried CVS and was pretty turned off by the experience of trying to set it up and use it. I've also read about a lot of teams which use Perforce here and there, although you kind of have to dig for the info with lots of Google searching.
Richard Kuo wrote:
If you are using Windows be sure to look at tortoisecvs.org ! It is a very nice CVS client (with SSH capabilities and all...). I'd leave the other SCMs to developers for now, at least until they publish some more tutorials and manuals.
Also worth checking out is the free cvs server service which you can use to check in your own projects and work with other developers over the internet. Similar to Sourceforge but you get to keep your IP. Also its not specific to Windows, any cvs client can access it.
Doh forgot the url:
Fog Creek Home