M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> I just took a brief look at the Darcs web site and the Cogito web site. 
> Given that Darcs is written in Haskell, I'd be inclined to blow it off 
> out of hand, since I don't know Haskell.
> 
> Cogito claims to be a front-end to git. I don't know much about git. I 
> think it's what the Linux kernel developers use for their source tree as 
> a replacement for what they used to use, the non-free bitkeeper.
> 
> For most purposes, the "big two" open source revision control systems -- 
> CVS and Subversion -- are good choices. They are free, widely used and 
> have wonderful web interfaces. I think Rubyforge uses CVS, so despite 
> the folks who swear undying love for Subversion and think that anyone 
> who doesn't immediately leave CVS for Subversion is missing out on 
> something wonderful, my choice would be CVS over either Darcs or Cogito. :)

I'm not an expert in any of them, but from what I can see:

* "Plain" CVS lacks more advanced functionality and doesn't appear to 
have any long term evolution goals (and, from a security standpoint, it 
allegedly has more holes than a HEPA filter (hence OpenBSD's 
implementation, OpenCVS)).
* SCM appears to be just a marginal improvement to CVS from a functional 
standpoint.
* Darcs, while written in Haskell (not being judgemental, just saying 
that it isn't a common language for most folks), appears to be a much 
more flexible system (despite a few shortcomings that could possibly be 
fixed in the near future).
* Cogito's core is basically a bunch of shell scripts (ewww ;) with 
assorted interfaces, and given the developer base being Linux kernel 
hackers I'd imagine it's highly functional.

I'd lean towards Darcs for overall use, and I'm sure each of the above 
is a perfectly legitimate solution for various individuals.  I'm simply 
curious as to other Rubyist's preferences towards the last 2 on the list.

As always, YMMV.

-- 
Alan Garrison
Cronosys, LLC <http://www.cronosys.com>
Phone: 216-221-4600 ext 308