Maintenance and development of [Tcl]'s core is itself a substantial project, one which 
certainly benefits from disciplined use of [SCM] tools.  As of July 2003, [SourceForge]
has hosted this work (for several years?).  There's sentiment to relocate Tcl's home to
another technology ''and'' another site, because [[enumerate reasons--unreliability;
no change sets (excessive or excessively low-level e-mail); ...]].  As [CL] 
understands matters, [BitKeeper], [Bugzilla], and [CVSTrac] are under consideration.

----

[PT] 16-Jul-2003: Bugzilla provides an extremely good bug tracking system that is highly configurable and significantly
better than the SourceForge trackers with low software overheads ([Apache], [MySQL] and [Perl] :( ).

I don't see much need to move away from a [CVS]-based version control system.
Bitkeeper is more efficient but imposes a barrier to
new contributors (ie: it costs--or does it?  CL thought that, as a totally public project, Tcl would
come under a no-charge BitKeeper license.  Maybe Bryan can help here ...). The Tcl code base really
isn't large enough to demand
the increased efficiency over CVS. Any new site should continue to provide pserver- and [ssh]-based cvs
access and should probably continue to provide [cvsweb] or equivalent [web] browsing of the cvs tree.

----

[Bryan Oakley] sez: yes, BitKeeper is free for open source projects such as Tcl.

----
[JMN] subversion may be worth a look. http://subversion.tigris.org
It can run using its own network server or using Apache and [webDAV]. I'm not an experienced SCM user, but I managed to set this up easily enough and am currently storing some of my personal TCL projects in it. .. Oh, and it has a [BSD]-style license :)

-----

I've been following the [arch] mailing list and it has now matured to the point that
it deserves a close look by those who maintain any package developed over the 
internet. [JBR]