[p4] How does Bitkeeper compare to Perforce?

[Ken Williams]

Hi Jeremy,

That comparison is woefully misinformed.  It claims Perforce doesn't even
have atomic changesets!

The spin on true facts is also pretty major, for example: "Perforce loses
information every time there is parallel development because you are forced
to merge before you check in if someone else checked in first."  That's a
*good* thing! =)

As I'm sure someone else will reply too, the major difference between
BitKeeper and Perforce is that distributed repository means centralized
merging, but centralized repository means distributed merging.  If you want
some central gatekeeper person to have to do all merges, BitKeeper can work
in your organization, but IMO it doesn't work well in the traditional model
of development teams.

 -Ken


On 7/3/07 7:51 AM, "Jeremy.Chatelaine" <Jeremy.Chatelaine at actant.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm a happy Perforce user but recently the company I work for ran some
> source control evaluation.
> 
> One person pointed me to this page:
> http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.Perforce.html
> 
> I was surprised to some points in the document to say the least and I
> was wondering if anyone here has anything to say about BitKeeper
> compared to Perforce.
> 
> I looked on Perforce website for a comparison document but could not
> find any. Posts on the mailing list are ether old or not greatly
> addressing this question.
> 
> So, can anyone let me know more information about BitKeeper vs Perforce?
> 
> I would be happy to hear about some real production experiences too.
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance,
> 
> Jeremy
> http://jeremy.chatelaine.name
> 
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user