Thanks, Matt, solid experience to share. I am forwarding it. My major gripe is the lack of true (data based) version labels. Also, I've become quite fond of change sets, and can't remember if svn supports those. I tend to drop SW as soon as I decide it doesn't have the facilities I need.
But svn is a godsend to web based OSS projects. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: OSS SCM From: "MattyJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, October 23, 2007 11:49 am To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [feel free to forward to the list] A buddy of mine worked in a commercial shop that used Svn, and he agrees that it's not ready for the enterprise. The lack of merge/branch/integration history was a real pain in the rump for him. Maintaining even a few branches becomes a full time job when you have releases and merges every few days. This is the big deal breakir for Svn. It also lacks (lacked?) a decent integration with Microsoft tools. Ankh is good, I like it, but when you change the interface to a tool even slightly, you get a lot of whining from the developers (especially M$ developers.) No matter how good it is, if you have stubborn developers it's just not going to happen. I like Svn, I think it's a solid piece of software, it's integration with Apache and all the goodness that brings is pretty awesome, but I didn't even consider deploying it at my current company because I knew we'd have at least a couple of branches, and literally some sort of deployment every day. I wouldn't have time for anything else but Svn admin. If I were a small consulting company with a few employees and cost was an issue, I'd certainly use it. But once you get past a handful of users it can be a handful to administer. -Matt On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:41:09 -0700, Lan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, October 23, 2007 11:30 am, Christian Seberino wrote: >> >> Lan Barnes wrote: >> >>> But on another tack (hijack alert), svn is powers of 10 improved over >>> cvs, >>> but still enough flawed so that I for one don't want to go there. >> >> Give Subversion some credit. Is it 10x better than CVS or not? If a >> product achieved that then they deserve *some* luv. If that is *still* >> not good enough for your standards then I fret you'll *never* find a SCM >> system fine enough for you. I've used CVS and Subversion and so I >> *love* >> Subversion. > > I thought I had. But it still lacks facilities that any serious > enterprise > needs, which means that (unlike Linux, Apache, etc) it's inadequate for > professional use. Unless the business powers are bigger cheap bastards > than I am, which would be monumental. > >> >> I wanted to like Git and Mercurial but couldn't see a pressing reason to >> go decentralized. >> > > The ability to be decentralized is almost necessary in these days of > decentrailzed development (and it's not just outsourcing -- we have > development in Houston and North Carolins). But IMO that should be an > option, not the default design. > > And to repeat, I haven't been able to devote enough time to mercurial or > git to even read their docs, let alone set up a test system. > > FWIW, I still use RCS a lot in my home stuff because it takes zip to set > up and is adequate for a 1-guy 1-box development model. > -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
