|
Of course they all have they goods and bads but as long as the one you use suites your needs then I would probable recommend you to stick with it.
I Started with CVS then SourceSafe, TFS, SVN and now Git.
The only time I actually migrated from one to other was from SourceSafe to SVN after some commits disappeared.
Cheers!
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Finally I am in the majority this time!
|
|
|
|
|
Which I find shocking given how bad it is! Unfortunately I use in the office, but would choose Git every time
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of product acceptance alone, putting aside the attributes of either system, Git is a name that should never adorn a product. In the west it means "Go Away!".
Conversely, the name SubVersion is genius.
Git is a stupid mistake of a name. Whoever named it needs to get out more.
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently Linus Torvalds had that in mind when he named Git (although he implies a different meaning).
Torvalds has quipped about the name git, which is British English slang roughly equivalent to "unpleasant person". Torvalds said: "I'm an egotistical bastard, and I name all my projects after myself. First 'Linux', now 'git'." The man page describes git as "the stupid content tracker".
Wikipedia link[^]
I guess he doesn't get out much, what with all the OS development and whatever...
Personally I prefer Mercurial, though I seldom get to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitBucket isn't a source control system - it's hosting for a source control system. If you're using BitBucket then you're either using Git or Mercurial as your "source code control system".
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification.
I never used that.But I heard about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I was customized using SVN.
From this vote, I know many source control tool exists. Then what is the difference between those and which is the best?
|
|
|
|
|
Differences: see here.
The best: depends on project and team...
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your kindly answer!
|
|
|
|
|
And we just upgraded to the 2005 version
|
|
|
|
|
You are not alone. Same here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same here[^].
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
For all of my projects, I use Git - mostly hosted on our Gitlab server.
However, being a Graduate student, I also have to work with code that is being submitted by students on class deadlines. Since it is possible -- in fact it's quite easy -- to change the date/time on a Git commit, we require student projects to be on the SVN server to ensure that timestamps are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is how our team uses it
Snapshot views only - no dynamic views
UCM enabled
activity/package/changeset tracking
component/project and component-dependency(composites) utilized
yearly trunk integration stream
monthly iteration development stream
team shares streams, snapshot views provide isolation (reduces branching+merging, forces early integration)
Some Pros
low maintenance - only 2-3 days of admin time per year thanks to UCM
unix heritage means that command line tools are as complete as GUI tools
command line tools generate output designed to be parsed
awesome merging tools include correct merging across renamed directories
One Con
UCM makes it hard to prune history
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot the other con...
It's horrible!
|
|
|
|
|
We currently use SVN at work, but even there we're looking at moving to Git. Possibly using Github at that.
Interesting to see that SVN still has some lead though!
Er, I can't think of a funny signature right now.
How about a good fart to break the silence?
|
|
|
|
|
If you are a small organisation and development environment is very dynamic and lot of small experiments you are doing go with GIT or HG.
If you are ready to spend money in TFS no doubt you can use it for any purpose, but then ask do you really need that investment.
|
|
|
|