BitKeeper Version Control Released As Open-Source

[RahulSundaram]

Yes, but a source-control system that isn't self-hosted kind of sends the wrong message

But it *is* self hosted. It happens to ALSO have a read only mirror in github. I don't see your point.

[Delgarde]

But it *is* self hosted. It happens to ALSO have a read only mirror in github. I don't see your point.

Oh, ok... I misunderstood that part of the post, then. I had read it as being hosted only on github, which would have been odd.

Yes, mirroring on Github is much more reasonable... much as some people dislike the reliance on a proprietary system, Github just doesn't have any rivals when it comes to the developer community that's grown around it.

[Licaon]

Yes, but a source-control system that isn't self-hosted kind of sends the wrong message.

Exactly, if your system is that great you don't need other programs (git/hg) to use it. I'll get your precompiled (or compile from source tar) and test it.

But hey, they're open sourcing for a reason... competitive free, good systems exists already, this is 10 years too late.

[bug77]

If Bitkeeper requires bitkeeper inorder to get bitkeeper, it isn't going fare well. Also GitHub is a very popular collob dev platform. Using it is pretty logical.

If Bitkeeper requires bitkeeper binaries in order to get bitkeeper sources, it is going to fare well.
FTFY

That's how (pardon the expression) svn does it.

[Ardje]

Yes, mirroring on Github is much more reasonable... much as some people dislike the reliance on a proprietary system, Github just doesn't have any rivals when it comes to the developer community that's grown around it.

Actually git is only a mirror. You mirror/sync your local git repository with another (remote) repository, bare or not. Doesn't matter if it is github, or a self hosted gitolite setup or plain ssh+git, or whatever setup, or even your friends clone/workspace. You only can't push branches that are checked out on the other side.
Github has some cool proprietary features, but that has nothing to do with using git itself.
Some people push to github because of the community and their own git repository, because github can be rather slow at times.

[Licaon]

If Bitkeeper requires bitkeeper binaries in order to get bitkeeper sources, it is going to fare well.

They have precompiled and source.tar.gz, what's the issue there?

[bug77]

They have precompiled and source.tar.gz, what's the issue there?

Not eating their own dog food (if it wasn't obvious enough).

[Licaon]

Not eating their own dog food (if it wasn't obvious enough).

Umm, what do you mean? What other means do you want besides source.tar, BitKeep clone repository, precompiled binaries and GitHub?


Download your favorite flavor(s) of BitKeeper here:

Source

• Direct source download ( tar.gz )
• Clone with BitKeeper
  • bk clone bk://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix (or 'dev' for the latest)
• Clone with git
  • Yes you heathens can clone the last released version of BitKeeper from github.com with the following command:
  • git clone https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper.git

@ https://www.bitkeeper.org/download.html

[bug77]

Umm, what do you mean? What other means do you want besides source.tar, BitKeep clone repository, precompiled binaries and GitHub?


Download your favorite flavor(s) of BitKeeper here:

Source

• Direct source download ( tar.gz )
• Clone with BitKeeper
  • bk clone bk://bkbits.net/u/bk/bugfix (or 'dev' for the latest)
• Clone with git
  • Yes you heathens can clone the last released version of BitKeeper from github.com with the following command:
  • git clone https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper.git

@ https://www.bitkeeper.org/download.html

Ok, it's hosted on bkbits.net, too. That's the part I missed.

[lbalbalba]

I wonder if there are any differences between the 'open source' ('crippleware') and the 'paid for' versions, or if the open source version is the 'full' product ?