Just found quite interesting review of different opensource version control systems.
As for me I'm trying to choose between Aegis and arch. I'm looking with very big suspect on subversion - my guts feeling is that subversion is too overengineered. Instead of solving real VC problems we see Apache intergration, WebDAV, binary db backend. At the end from the point of view of end user (i.e. me) it doesn't offer much more then old CVS.
P.S. And, yeah, BitKeeper rocks. But it is too expensive for us.
Re:Commercial Options
MythosTraecer on 2003-11-04T06:32:44
Our requirement for this is to work on both Unix and Windows, so all the open source options are out.
Why not CVS itself? Obviously it runs on Unix, and I've found the CVSNT port (http://www.cvsnt.org) to be quite nice. Plus, there's a plethora of Windows-, Unix-, Java-, and web-based clients.Re:Commercial Options
Matts on 2003-11-04T09:33:51
Because unfortunately CVS is broken in many rather fundamental ways. Such as doing lots of branching/merging, lack of file metadata versioning, etc.Re:Commercial Options
jonasbn on 2003-11-26T08:08:49
How can you rule out open source on that account?
The CVS client for Windows tortoiseCVS is actually quite ok - I expect you a familiar with the Unix client.
I understand if you have special requirements, but you do not list them here, so it is hard to say.
Re:Commercial Options
Matts on 2003-11-26T08:57:08
You're right, I didn't list them as I've listed them before in my journal. Basically we need fixed branching and merging along with ease of use for the Windows guys. And it needs to easily support very large projects (which is somewhere that SVN currently falls down I believe).
