|
Because they're marginal as you can see. I also use this marginal system - Hg.
|
|
|
|
|
"A narrowed down follow up "
|
|
|
|
|
Well... CVS sucks...   ...and well, it's not being developed anymore, and hasn't been for quite a while now (superseded by other options)...
...but Mercurial is widely popular, I'm surprised it's not on there...
|
|
|
|
|
I work for a big organization and not all our departments are using the same tool sets.
Internally we're using CVS but our external (visible to users external to the company) versioning system is subversion. We have different branches in different countries and even here there are differences. For my one project (working with users external to the country I live in but internal to the company) I'm working on we use rational ClearCase.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >>
|
|
|
|
|
|
I first started looking into source control a couple years ago, with my previous employer. Until then, I didn't have any projects of much complexity whatsoever, so I didn't feel the need for it. But once I began writing software for them, I knew it was time. I've been using Git since then, and I love it. 
djj55: Nice but may have a permission problem
Pete O'Hanlon: He has my permission to run it.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt U. wrote: I've been using Git since then, and I love it.
We're using Git, too. It's okay, but to love it you must be more than a little bit masochistic, mustn't you? 
|
|
|
|
|
ihoecken wrote: It's okay, but to love it you must be more than a little bit masochistic, mustn't you?
I must agree. I lead the switch from Perforce to Git in my group (the decision was made on a much higher level, though) but I don't think anybody is happy with it.
|
|
|
|
|
... what do you recommend for an upgrade path? I'm starting to look into this for us, as the day-to-day management of SourceSafe data bases is getting to be a PITA.
Team Foundation Server is an obvious first choice. We use SourceSafe sharing a lot, which TFS does not appear to support. How do you handle common source files (for example, .h files for libraries)?
I've also looked a little at SourceGear Vault, which recreates the SourceSafe environment but with a more sturdy SQL Server backend.
I'll probably also take a look at Subversion, given its popularity. I doubt I would consider Git, as we don't need distributed access, the learning curve sounds steep, and there's no Visual Studio integration.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
We are in the same boat; we have looked at various including TFS and Subversion.
TFS is far more than we need generally, but as well as sharing, it does not support keyword expansion either, which we use.
Subversion seems to have some serious limitations, particularly version labeling.
We are currently trying SourceAnyWhere, which again recreate SourceSafe with an SQL backend.
|
|
|
|
|
Having tried others including Bazar, which should be renamed to Bizarre, I settled on Subversion and have never regretted the decision.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
Subversion does do version labelling. Just create a branch at the point you want labelled.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
We have used Sourcegear Vault for several years, and its APIs let us integrate it into our custom CRM system.
|
|
|
|
|
Having used VSS (Visual Source Sausage<g>) years past, once we switched to SVN, we never looked back.
One thing we do is use multiple on some projects with longer development cycles.
We have just started using Hg locally against source in SVN, just to support mini-commits that might break a build, but need to capture current development source state.
The hardest thing in the switch is moving from Repository Centered viewing. In the beginning I was constantly using SVN Repo Browser to "see" what was inside the server.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: I'll probably also take a look at Subversion, given its popularity. I doubt I would consider Git, as we don't need distributed access, the learning curve sounds steep, and there's no Visual Studio integration.
TFS or Subversion would be the best bets then. If you also want application life cycle management and VS integration then TFS or Git would be the choices as VS is becoming increasingly Git-friendly.
There are a few GUI tools for Git but no real VS integration.
I've started using Git in my current contract and I've settled on Git Extensions. It's not proper VS integration but good enough. You get a basic VS toolbar for Commit, Pull and Push. You can right-click on a tab and get file history and file diffs, etc.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
I've often used multiple programs, depending on the project. I could've easily checked SVN, TFS and Perforce.
At this point in the survey I'm surprised that TFS has such a lead on Git. Then again it's coming from the Microsoft-only shops. Nothing wrong with that...please don't hate. 
|
|
|
|
|
When I saw this survey I thought: why this a radio not set of checkboxes? Really not everyone can work on internal projects or dictate that kind of thing to customer.
No more Mister Nice Guy... >: |
|
|
|
|
|
.....I've got to admit, the more I use git the more I'd never consider anything else.
For a long time I used SVN and enthused about it - with a good setup it just *works* which is something we can't say about, for example, office, visual studio, windows, yadayada all the software we use day to day. But git has taken the throne for me.
The large supply of free online services like GitHub have massively boosted it's popularity, and for what it can cost in terms of a bit of a syntactic learning curve, you get it back so many times over when you start working with pull requests and having to branch regularly.
There are still moments of frustration when someone gets something wrong and you end up with huge merge commits, but as a team starts getting to grips with git, it can really be of benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
 *pukes
|
|
|
|
|
Hang on, it gets even better: The old projects in Source Safe actually are great Access applications with such an adcanced design that you probably never heard of it. 
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
I hold an A-7 computer expert classification, Commodore. I'm well acquainted with Dr. Daystrom's theories and discoveries. The basic design of all our ship's computers are JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
yep, that's exactly what we've got Access 97 databases, tons of the little s**ts
we've got another SS db for the more 'advanced' vb6 apps.
Looks like we might be migrating to use ClearCase as we've found that some other part of the company has already got the licenses for it.
|
|
|
|
|
There really must be a joke in there, VSS, Access, VB6 and from Ireland.
While we may be a little more up to date the idea that we will use a tool is often dictated by "Oh some other department already uses it" no matter how crappy the dammed thing is.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Really!
I've mentioned it to my boss several times but when he sees the cost of upgrade it goes right back out the other ear. He is also blind to the time savings that we would gain after an upgrade.
|
|
|
|
|
I think I've actually got my boss convinced that we need to upgrade. We've got several SourceSafe "data bases", half of which are at or near the 5GB size limit. The nightly backup / ANALYZE run takes six hours just to churn through the three most active data bases.
If you were to upgrade, what would you upgrade to? Team Foundation Server? SourceGear Vault? Or would you go with one of the other source control tools that don't integrate with Visual Studio?
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I am envious. Good job in convincing him. We run /ANALYZE only on the weekend and hope for the best. We have taken a look at TFS a couple of times but there is always a reason to delay it.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
