The grand irony is that Larry was one of the earliest advocates of open sourcing the operating system at Sun[1] -- and believed that by the time Sun finally collectively figured it out and made it happen (in 2005), it was a decade or more too late.[2] So on the one hand, you can view the story of BitKeeper with respect to open source as almost Greek in its tragic scope: every reason that Larry outlined for "sourcewar…
Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
61–70 of 309 posts
Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#62Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#63The grand irony is that Larry was one of the earliest advocates of open sourcing the operating system at Sun[1] -- and believed that by the time Sun finally collectively figured it out and made it happen (in 2005), it was a decade or more too late.[2] So on the one hand, you can view the story of BitKeeper with respect to open source as almost Greek in its tragic scope: every reason that Larry outlined for "sourcewar…
Yeah this irony is not lost on me. But in both cases, the companies acted in self interest. Neither had the guts to walk away from their existing revenue stream. It's hard to say what would have happened. It's been an interesting ride and if nothing else, BK was the inspiration for Git and Hg, that's a contribution to the field. And maybe, just maybe, people will look at the SCCS weave and realize that Tichy pulled t…
Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
You wouldn't, unless you have very specific niche needs. They're pretty upfront about it: >Why use BitKeeper when there are lots of great alternatives? >For many projects, the answer is: you shouldn’t. https://www.bitkeeper.org/why.html
Probably the single biggest reason, aside from it's easier to use than git's CLI, is that it has sub-modules that work exactly like files do in a repository. No extra options, just clone/pull/push/commit/etc. Full on distributed workflow. BitKeeper itself is a collection of repositories. Download an install image, install, and clone it: $ bk clone http://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix $ cd bugfix $ bk here PRODUCT default $…
Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#65Does this come with any sort of web interface?
http://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix/
that's bk/web which is included in the release.
Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the single biggest reason, aside from it's easier to use than git's CLI, is that it has sub-modules that work exactly like files do in a repository. No extra options, just clone/pull/push/commit/etc. Full on distributed workflow. BitKeeper itself is a collection of repositories. Download an install image, install, and clone it: $ bk clone http://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix $ cd bugfix $ bk here PRODUCT default $…
If this works well than this indeed is a HUGE reason to use BK!
$ bk clone http://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix/
type make and you should have a working BK built from source.Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the single biggest reason, aside from it's easier to use than git's CLI, is that it has sub-modules that work exactly like files do in a repository. No extra options, just clone/pull/push/commit/etc. Full on distributed workflow. BitKeeper itself is a collection of repositories. Download an install image, install, and clone it: $ bk clone http://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix $ cd bugfix $ bk here PRODUCT default $…
It claims to be able to handle binary files well which would be a big deal to game development. They have mostly passed on git and mercurial since they can't handle game assets.
Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#68Looking at the bk import man page, it looks like it cannot import from any modern VCS. I see only RCS, SCCS, CVS, and MKS as options. This is unfortunate, as I have a mercurial tree I'd like to import.
Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah this irony is not lost on me. But in both cases, the companies acted in self interest. Neither had the guts to walk away from their existing revenue stream. It's hard to say what would have happened. It's been an interesting ride and if nothing else, BK was the inspiration for Git and Hg, that's a contribution to the field. And maybe, just maybe, people will look at the SCCS weave and realize that Tichy pulled t…
Thank you for contributing to the development and evangalizing of DVCS, directly (BK) and indirectly (the ideas and inspiration for git, hg).
Was BitKeeper the first version control system to "think distributed" ?
Re: Show HN: BitKeeper – Enterprise-ready version control, now open-source
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I though SCCS had the same problems as RCS. What did it do differently?
RCS is patch based, the most recent version is kept in clear text and the previous version is stored as a reverse patch and so on back to the first version. So getting the most recent version could be fast (it isn't) but the farther back you go in history the more time it takes. And branches are even worse, you have to patch backwards to the branch point and then forwards to the tip of the branch. SCCS is a "weave".…