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]].  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 barier 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.

----