Re: BitKeeper open-sourced

[Matt Sporleder <msporleder%gmail.com@localhost>]

Give it a try. 

> On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:23 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> wrote:
> 
> BitKeeper is now released as APL-2.0. https://www.bitkeeper.org/
> 
> From the webpage:
> 
> BitKeeper is the original distributed source management system. Now
> available as Open Source under the Apache 2.0 License.
> 
> BitKeeper is a fast, enterprise-ready, distributed SCM that scales up to
> very large projects and down to tiny ones.
> 
> Features:
> -    Simple: An easy to use command line interface.
> -    Scalable: Nested Repositories are submodules done right! Version
>      control collections of repositories.
> -    Flexible: Hybrid mode for binary files that uses a cloud of
>      server for binaries instead of bloating the source repositories.
> -    Accurate: Tracking of file operations like creates, deletes, and
>      renames.
> -    Safe: All file accesses validate checksums for integrity. All
>      file writes include redundancy for error correction.
> -    Dependable: Highly accurate auto-merge that uses the whole
>      history to resolve conflicts. Most other systems use variations
>      of diff3.
> -    Discernable: Source annotations instantly available.
> -    Fast: High performance and scales to very large repositories.
> -    Free: Licensed under the Apache Version 2 license
> 
> 
> 
> It matches the requirements of David Holland from "preliminary version
> control requirements" [1], except branching -- as branches are handled
> as separate clones. According to the upstream developers it should work
> well for releng.
> 
> There is a fallback for restricted environment to pull the changes from
> a remote repository and more or less (according to my understanding)
> apply binary diff from upstream tarball to the checkout (according to
> upstream show work pretty fine with 64MB RAM).
> 
> Performance comparisons with git are pretty promising, p. 5:
> http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/bkdocs/productline.pdf
> 
> BitKeeper currently depends on PCRE and TCL/TK, but at least the TCL/TK
> requirement is going to be detached and bitkeeper-base-like package will
> depend on C. There are more dependencies bundled in and they are in
> process of unloading.
> 
> The code is NetBSD friendly, upstream used our source-code (notably
> stdio from libc) for portability reasons.
> 
> There is strong upstream commercial support for BK and the product isn't
> going anywhere.
> 
> I hope It shouldn't be too difficult to get help from upstream with
> proper CVS->BK conversion.
> 
> [1] http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-repository/2008/07/26/msg000003.html