|
It's funny you should mention that; my employer has licensed Rational Suite nearly a year ago, but has not seen fit to provide any training in its use or encourage a transition away from VSS within IT. It is probably in the pipeline though; considering how deep we are in the release cycle, it would be a bad time to transition to a new version control system. We just had a new defect tracking system implemented; it was a highly positive change, but extremely painful.
That's kind of beside the point though, I am looking for an application for my private consulting work. At most we get five or six developers in the pot at one time. I am giving WinCVS[^] a pilot run (1 week into it) and Jim just pointed out Subversion[^]. Its feature list is an interesting read; I'll give it a try with my next small project. In this case where I do have a choice, I want to use something besides VSS.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
To the above wish list I'd add better sharing/branching/merging. VSS can only share once before the history become "disconnected". It's very cumbersome to manage multiple simultaneous development paths on a code base. Yes, pin works but it requires additional effort on the part of each developer and is therefore error prone.
In short, VSS is a nice starter tool for source that evolves linearly. For any "real" source base that has mainlines, service packs, new feature work and cancelled/abandoned projects all at once, VSS can't cut it.
CVS has nicer branching/merging. Don't have experience with any of the others mentioned here.
Brad
|
|
|
|
|
If VSS had built-in remote control, perhaps over FTP, then the package would be 100 times better. As it is, third party packages like Source Off-Site may be fine, but I haven't used them (partly because managers would soon expect me to work 24 hours a day).
However, I'd rather use the beast than drop to a DOS window or TCL/TK command line to issue commands available in CVS. IDE integration is the main feature that VSS can boast and that is enough for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Welch wrote:
However, I'd rather use the beast than drop to a DOS window or TCL/TK command line to issue commands available in CVS. IDE integration is the main feature that VSS can boast and that is enough for me.
CVS does have a GUI (http://www.wincvs.org[^]), but it leaves a LOT to be desired. There's just something about open source software - it's great stuff, but most of it is never very polished.
CVS also has IDE integration: http://www.jalindi.com/igloo/[^]
I still prefer source safe. Maybe that feeling will pass as I get more used to CVS.
Jon Sagara
In India, when someone says "mad cow", you know it's actually a bull charging at him.
-- Rohit Sinha
|
|
|
|
|
I used WinCVS to see what it could do. There were a some commands that you had to type into the command line (I think releasing a project was one such command - that is a basic need that requires a menu option). 
Also, I have noticed that almost all Windows interfaces for open source software suffer from EMacs syndrom. That is, 100 menu commands divided into strange groupings with related commands appearing on different menus. 
I downloaded Igloo, but I was not really interested in installing it just to use an already lack-luster CVS with VS.NET. I also had to teach two junior developers how to use it (and one of them was running Front Page). I just couldn't justify the headache. 
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using TortoiseCVS, it's a beautiful GPLed CVS client which integrates into the context menu of the explorer. There's no command line and no emacs syndrom.
And it also works from the file open/save dialogs, even those inside Visual Studio, so I would call it integrated into the ide 
---
Author of FileZilla FTP
http://sourceforge.net/projects/filezilla
|
|
|
|
|
Corrupt databases.
No way of running it remotely via simple TCP connections.
No cross-platform support.
Slow.
So bad Microsoft doesn't even use it for most of their projects.
Why on Earth anyone uses Source(Un)Safe is beyond me.
SourceOffsite sucks as well. Start a checkout and you'll quickly see that there's no way to cancel or stop it in progress. Hangs are common.
Blech.
CVS has its own problems, but at least it's free and cross-platform.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous wrote:
SourceOffsite sucks as well.
SourceOffsite does have its limitations, I'll grant you that. But when the company I worked for needed to work from two remote locations through a campus (Texas A&M University) firewall, and connect to a preexisting VSS depot -- We were hard pressed to find a better solution that got us up and running. Because everyone was already familiar with VSS from using it in the lab on campus, moving remote and using SourceOffsite saved us time and money.
|
|
|
|
|
I would say it's useful for small projects only.
When we were using it we found the database kept getting corrupted every week or so and that was for max 20 people acessing the database. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some questions can't be answwered.
Who said that SourceSafe is the defacto standard? Seems to me it's CVS.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Who said that SourceSafe is the defacto standard?
The other survey might suggest just that: Source Code and Version control[^]
Version control is often enforced by the company, so it's not always the best tool that wins the game.
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Seems to me it's CVS.
CVS is probably the tool of choice whenever one has a choice. It's a de facto standard on Unix, for small, medium and large projects. It's also the most popular over the Internet.
<center> </center>
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
The other survey might suggest just that: Source Code and Version control[^]
Ah, I see. Clearly that's a fact I had missed/
I actually enjoyed using VSS when I did, but the last two places I've worked have ignored it; and I thought I was a trend here on CP of CVS being recommneded over VSS.
|
|
|
|
|
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Who said that SourceSafe is the defacto standard? Seems to me it's CVS.
Not on Windows, hence the clarification in the poll saying "Windows." CVS is seen as the choice of the Unix/Linux crowd. SourceSafe the "choice" of the Windows crowd.
Remember SourceSafe comes with Visual Studio for most Windows developers.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
Vivek Rajan wrote (about the Matrix):
I assume they are using low colors because they want faster rendering using cheaper hardware... ...Cmon - atleast use 256 colors...
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote:
CVS is seen as the choice of the Unix/Linux crowd. SourceSafe the "choice" of the Windows crowd.
Just for the record, the "choice" of the Windows crowd is CVSNT[^] rather than the classic, Unix'y CVS. Those without choice use SourceSafe
<center> </center>
|
|
|
|
|
George wrote:
Those without choice use SourceSafe
Exactly, just what that other chap was saying. That most developers do not have the choice is obvious, hence SourceSafe is the most used on Windows.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South Africa
Vivek Rajan wrote (about the Matrix):
I assume they are using low colors because they want faster rendering using cheaper hardware... ...Cmon - atleast use 256 colors...
|
|
|
|
|
What do you use Paul?
Regards,
Brian Dela 
|
|
|
|
|
"My company tells me I have to use it, and therefore I do."
I didn't see that option.
We just got done implememting a LIMS system and there were three of us using it. We all workied on different parts of code. Though the company demanded that if we did any work from home, we log into the company network (and VSS) to access our code.
We just wanted to work on our files at home and update them the next morning. Which in our interest, would have worked.
Anybody else use it cause company policy dictates it?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
