OpenCM

How is OpenCM usable for source code revision management? The web page emphasizes security, but is thin on information on source code-related features. How is it compared to Arch, Subversion, other CVS successor, etc.?

It strikes me that a post on advogato should be an article that more or less stands on it's own. This is just mindless link propagation.

At the very least I'd like to hear something about what OpenCM is before I waste half an hour installing it, downloading it, and compliling it.

Here is more info for you. Seemed like something I thought people would be interested in.

From their web page:

OpenCM is designed as a secure, high-integrity replacement for CVS. A list of the key features can be found on the features page. While not as ``feature rich'' as CVS, it supports some useful things that CVS lacks. Briefly, OpenCM provides first-class support for renames and configuration, cryptographic authentication and access control, and first-class branches.

The OpenCM project was originally started because we needed a secure, high-integrity configuration management system for the EROS project. Alternatives, such as BitKeeper, Subversion, and PerForce, either did not meet our requirements or were not available at the time the work started. We had previously used CVS, but it's absence of real branches and configurations finally drove us to build a better tool.

Seemed like something I thought people would be interested in.

Indeed it is. Another cvs replacement, especially one that looks well thought out and open source friendly, is a very interesting and relevent topic for an article. However, I agree with tapir that just posting a link is inappropriate for a front-page article. Articles should indeed stand somewhat on their own. The press release cut and paste if certainly helpful background, but I would also have liked to hear your impressions on the history and design. What makes this tool interesting? As it stands this is more appropriate for a diary entry.

Looking at the website I was struck by the superficial similarity to subversion but the difference of route. OpenCM put authentication and access control first, but haven't implemented binary diffs, while subversion is the other way around. :-)

OpenCM also looks like it has better disconnected support than subversion if lets you do local commits. svn will let you diff and revert against your last repository update, but afaik you still have to manage the patches yourself. Likewise, OpenCM seems to have replication as part of the design from the beginning, while svn sticks closer to the cvs model. (though this doesn't current work in OpenCM either). OTOH, I suspect subversion will be more amenable to porting and alternate client implementations with its reliance on apache as the server and, er, aggressive modularization. For our work with Ghostscript, cross-platform client support is actually much more important than the access control or non-ssh authentication, though we'd welcome that too.

Subversion also has a much better name.

am i the only one who cringes anytime a project calls itself Open*?