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

[Nicholas C. <ni...@cc...>]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 10:23:15AM +0100, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> At 22:30 -0600 12/21/03, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> >On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, Ken Williams wrote:
> > > I'd like to eventually move Module::Build development to perforce.  I
> > > can import the CVS history from the sourceforge project.  I've set up a
> > > server in my house on my DSL line.  Not real heavy-duty, but it should
> > > suffice.
> > > Any objections?
> >I for one prefer to use free software when possible.  What's so great
> >about Perforce that we shouldn't use it instead of Arch, Subversion, or
> >one of a bazillion other free alternatives?
> 
> I know that Subversion has been tried for the Ponie project.  I think 
> I can still hear Arthur scream whenever Subversion gets mentioned. 
> It was particularly difficult to get any performance out of it with a 
> relatively large number of branches.

My understanding is that the performance issues have been attacked with
considerable vigour since then, and it's now quite a lot faster.
I've found no problems with using it (as a client) on other projects.
However, it's still moving, and they quite openly don't yet guarantee much
backwards (binary) compatibility between minor versions.

What no-one's yet mentioned is that perforce require you to renew the licence
annually. I'm aware of 2 perl projects using perforce who were caught out by
their licence running out, at which point they are locked out of their
entire repository. Perforce seemed quite speedy in renewing the licence
(considerably faster than the times officially promised) but this
understandable desire of perforce to verify that they are not being conned
results in frustrating beaurocracy.

Nicholas Clark