# status of BitKeeper in openEHR

**Category:** [Technical (archive)](https://discourse.openehr.org/c/technical-archive/156)
**Created:** 2005-05-20 15:14 UTC
**Views:** 9
**Replies:** 2
**URL:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/status-of-bitkeeper-in-openehr/14497

---

## Post #1 by @thomas.beale

Dear all,

BitMover Inc has recently decided to withdraw its open license, and we are going to be forced to change our CM system for openEHR\. This is a huge disappointment, since BitKeeper really is the rolls\-royce application in its class, and is ideally suited to open development\. However, they have made a decision, and given some leeway for people like us to change\. I am not 100% sure of what you will be experiencing currently if you try to do a pull with your current copy of BK; if you are experiencing problems, please let us know\.

Some people may be thinking "told you so", but as a quick defence of our choice I would note:
\- we placed quite some weight on Linus Torvalds' choice of BK 2 years ago, and also some other large open source projects
\- we started using BK in openEHR at the end of 1993\. THe most likely alternative, Subversion, was much less mature then
\- the choice has absolutely minimised our manual work in CM for the period we have had it\.

We will most likely move to subversion, and set up a subversion server on openEHR\.org\. Subversion is essentially the "new CVS" and handles moves and renames properly, and also has some semblance of change sets\. The biomedical engineering group at the university of Valencia where I have been for the last couple of days have been using it for a while and report no problems, and showed me integrations with Eclipse and JBuilder\. \(Not sure if refactoring inside those tools does the right things to Subversion, but we'll test that\)\.

Unless anyone in the community has some strong reason or evidence why subversion would not be a good choice, we will migrate in the next few weeks\. We cannot guarantee that all interior versions of openEHR repositories will be kept intact when migrating the files, but we will do our best\.

We will announce further details as we know them\.

\- thomas beale

---

## Post #2 by @Puvanendran_SenthilR

Hi Thomas,
  I am using subversion \(svn\) for last one year \- from
July 2004\. It really useful one\. When i compare with
cvs\. Atomic files collection commit and revision
numbers for each commit \- common for all the files in
commit\. And we can configure mail setting to send
commit messages to all developers/users in svn\. And
http access to subversion to read/check files\. In
addition to that, most of commands are same as cvs\.
So, I could not find any issues with subversion\. But,
if we are going to create more branches and tags, we
need to have big harddisk\.
If you have any issues with subversion let me know\. I
used in Linux version for development\. But, I tested
in windows as well\.

Thanks

Regards
P\.Senthilruban

---

## Post #3 by @Dr_LONJON_Roger

Hello Thomas \!\!

You have big problems \!\! with "bitKeeper " ??

CMS ??  see CPS \(  in french\) www\.nuxeo\.com
Il existe CPS \( un bon produit sous ZOPE et Python\) qui permet de la
publication et du travail ccoperatif sur les documents \.

Avez vous perdu ou non lu mes messages précédents ?? qui sont sans réponse de
votre part \.

Amitiés

Dr R LONJON
France

Selon Thomas Beale <thomas@deepthought\.com\.au>:

---


**Canonical:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/status-of-bitkeeper-in-openehr/14497
**Original content:** https://discourse.openehr.org/t/status-of-bitkeeper-in-openehr/14497