Re: [Module::Build] Moving to perforce?

[Ken W. <ke...@ma...>]

On Sunday, December 21, 2003, at 10:30  PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>
> I for one prefer to use free software when possible.

Me too, definitely.  However, I also have a goal of supporting 
commercial companies that support open source work.  I appreciate 
perforce's move to making their product free for open source work, and 
I think that if it's a better product the community can benefit from 
using it.  And I tend to believe (I think) that open-source tools can 
achieve better "market penetration" if the companies that assist the 
movement can actually find ways to make The Big Bucks in doing so.

Note that there are a lot of tools (API perl modules, conversion 
scripts, editor support, web repository browsers, bugzilla cooperation, 
etc.) that they release open source, and the only software that's 
actually for-pay is the server binary (I think).


> What's so great
> about Perforce that we shouldn't use it instead of Arch, Subversion, or
> one of a bazillion other free alternatives?

The two main things are that they have atomic commits of multiple 
files, and it's stable enough that they can get people to pay for it.

They also integrate a job management (i.e. bug tracking) system in with 
the software, which I'd like to use, or at least try using.

But another thing is that everyone I talk to who's used it seems to 
like it, which is probably worth a lot.

  -Ken