Re: Aegis [Was: CVS migration to subversion?]

[Sriram Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:23:24AM -0500, Peter Bowen wrote:
> [ comments about Aegis might not be up to snuff for distributed projects]
> 
> However, this is a very interesting product overall.  I think it could
> potentially be a great alternative to proprietary products like
> BitKeeper.  From their documentation, they seem to have many similar
> features to BK, and, with some work, could become a very viable
> alternative to BK.  At the same time the same can be said about
> subversion.  I think that both of these systems have features that will
> make them superior to CVS, but the real question is which one will get
> _all_ the features we need first?

There is also Arch which allows distributed repositories.  I had looked
at it earlier but it suffers from ease of use features and a lot of 
people mistrust it because it's practically put together using shell
glue and some small apps and thus is not a monolithic application 
like cvs is.  

http://regexps.srparish.net/www/

In many ways this is probably as controversial as Aegis but less so than
subversion.  Personally, if the documentation/interface issues were
resolved (and I believe it's getting there) Arch would be something I
would seriously consider.

sri