Stable release?[edit]

What is the criterium for a "stable" release? Mercurial released its 1.0 release in 2008, yet it is mentioned as being from 2005. --ctrlsoft (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. Mercurial has been used by some prominent projects since well before that 1.0 release, which is a pretty good sign that it was quite stable before that. Any suggestions? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SCCS open source?[edit]

SCCS is listed under open source software. While that may be true now with OpenSolaris and Ancient UNIX licenses, it is also distributed in proprietary versions, which may still be more prevalent. Shouldn't it be under proprietary? Qwertyus (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I decided instead to move SCCS and RCS to a separate group "Traditional". Neither follows a client-server architecture, at least not in the networking sense of the word, being both based on Unix and timesharing. Qwertyus (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As SCCS is the fastest source control system and as SCCS uses the most interesting history file format, I tried to bring SCCS into OSS more than 10 years ago already, by negotiating with SCO. Two weeks before the related source from SCO should be given out, SCO has been bought by Caldera Linux and the interest for making things OSS disappeared. It took some additional time to convince Sun to to it finally in December 2006.
Sun sees SCCS as a separate product and even in former times, SCCS was not part of the UNIX sources but part of the programmers workbench. This is why SCCS is not covered by the ancient UNIX license. If SCO was not bought by Caldera, nobody would claim a context to OpenSolaris. SCCS is highly portable (it even works on VMS) and it is developed independently from OpenSolaris.
There is no active development in the closed source versions at Sun, SCO, IBM, HP, Silicon Graphics, ... since 1999 when all these vendors made a last common attempt to eliminate the y2k problem. There is however active development on the OSS SCCS. SCCS is even on it's way to become a distributed source control system soon. --Schily (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Put differently: There is a single active developer: User:Schily. There might be as many users, too. Apparently it has been abandoned by the original developers at Sun/Oracle. I'd call this "historical". --87.174.90.182 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are many companies, products and open source projects were abandoned by the original founders or developers. so what? it doesn't affect their success later. Srunning (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree - one indication of multiple active developers would be the changelog. Random WP:COI/self-promotional edits are not WP:RS TEDickey (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How was your WP:COI editing in Ncurses and CDK in wikipedia? I think the most important is to keep neutral point of view. Let's keep the discussion open. If there are self-promotional edits, just point them out. Srunning (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can defer my response until you've established a reputation other than an editor who attacks others TEDickey (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CMVC is dead[edit]

CMVC seems to be dead, should be in italics, right?

The linked topic implies that it is still supported TEDickey (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update VCS templace to reflect new BitKeeper license[edit]

As of 9 May 2016 BitKeeper is Apache Licensed, or at least intends to be fully apache licensed at some point. See [1] for the press release. Roman Hargrave (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories