Timeline for I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
51 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2014 at 17:31 | history | protected | maple_shaft♦ | ||
| S Aug 1, 2012 at 8:52 | history | suggested | Robin Maben | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
corrected grammar
|
| Aug 1, 2012 at 8:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 1, 2012 at 8:52 | |||||
| Mar 5, 2012 at 12:04 | comment | added | Amadiere | -1 for the Katy Perry reference. ;) | |
| Feb 3, 2012 at 0:57 | comment | added | jiggy | I've been using Mercurial and SVN concurrently on different projects and can honestly say that whatever problems DVCS is solving are problems I never have. With SVN, we have about a dozen team members who all commit multiple times a day and merges are needed maybe once a month and take 5 minutes. It's just inherent to the type of work we do. I understand conceptually why it is better, but no it won't give a benefit to everyone. Still, you should upgrade because why not. | |
| Oct 31, 2011 at 20:50 | comment | added | alternative | @Joonas No, one server can serve 2000 repositories and each programmer can check out the repository he needs. Its actually more efficient that way, anyways. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 23:18 | comment | added | Arafangion | You are working in a private branch if you ever check out a copy of the code to work on. Infact, this is the only way to use most version control systems. Subversion and other centralised VCS systems place a very significant restriction on this private branch - namely, you can have only one revision. (Some, like perforce, don't even let you safely merge without committing the current changes first in case the merge fails!) | |
| S Jul 29, 2011 at 18:01 | history | suggested | Martin S. Stoller | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Just added link to Mr. Fowler's site on his name.
|
| Jul 29, 2011 at 17:53 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 29, 2011 at 18:01 | |||||
| Jul 29, 2011 at 17:49 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated
|
| Jun 15, 2011 at 10:09 | comment | added | user2567 | @Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen: It didn't so far. We are no different, we have release branches like most software project. I really think the difference is how we organize our work. | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 9:55 | comment | added | user1249 | @Pierre, that is because you only work on a single branch. When you reach maintenance mode and needing to port changes back and forth between branches this might change. | |
| Jun 15, 2011 at 9:49 | comment | added | user2567 | @Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen: this is not relevant to us. We rarely get conflicts for the following reasons: we apply principles like SOLID and continuous integration. In addition to that we promote pair programming when two developers must work on the same area of the code. | |
| Jun 12, 2011 at 22:22 | comment | added | user1249 | Great. Remember the most important thing to actually try is to merge conflicts. | |
| Jun 12, 2011 at 21:56 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 242 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jun 8, 2011 at 14:36 | comment | added | user2567 | I installed it today, and it works. It's all I can say for now. I'll provide you with more feedback after a week or two of usage. | |
| Jun 1, 2011 at 21:29 | comment | added | alternative | Any update on the results of trying DVCS? | |
| Apr 21, 2011 at 18:19 | comment | added | M.Sameer | +1 For getting me read about Mercurial, I am SVN guy too :) | |
| Mar 7, 2011 at 12:48 | comment | added | Benjol | @Pierre, this isn't really an answer, but here are two links that have helped me in my slow progress to git-fu. | |
| Jan 22, 2011 at 11:51 | answer | added | Pete | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 12, 2011 at 11:30 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 12, 2011 at 11:30 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 65 characters in body
|
| Jan 11, 2011 at 7:31 | comment | added | Joonas Pulakka | @Sharpie: It's good for you that you like it. But one man's pro is another man's con. Some people consider the clarity of a single centralized repository with a single canonical trunk incredibly valuable. Here's a presentation on how Google keeps the source code of all its projects, over 2000, in a single code trunk containing hundreds of millions of code lines, with more than 5000 developers accessing the same repository. Would you rather prefer 5000 servers and the history of 2000 projects on everyone's desk?-) | |
| Jan 10, 2011 at 19:00 | comment | added | Sharpie | @Joonas: The distributed model puts at least one extra repository between my dumb mistakes and the rest of the team which is incredibly valuable no matter the project. Because of that, I can't understand the label "cargo cult" (going through the motions of something for no benefit). | |
| Jan 10, 2011 at 15:10 | answer | added | Bart van Ingen Schenau | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 10, 2011 at 7:35 | comment | added | Joonas Pulakka |
@Sharpie: Having used both svn, git and hg for years, I'm pretty well aware of their pros and cons. While git is certainly the most powerful of these, it's important to acknowledge that more powerful doesn't automatically imply better. Emacs is certainly more powerful than any javascript text editor running in web browser, but, strangely, I'm writing this comment into a javascript browser text editor right now! Simplicity, even stupidity, has value in many contexts. Using centralized svn and something like git-svn locally offers the best of both worlds.
|
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 22:26 | comment | added | Sharpie |
@Joonas I think you should support your argument a little more before throwing words like "cargo cult" around. svn was my first version control system and I used it happily for years. I switched to git for the simple fact that it gave me a larger and more powerful set of tools for managing my source code---not because some mysterious stranger with a scraggly UNIX beard fed me kool-aid spiked with something suspicious.
|
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 21:42 | answer | added | Sharpie | timeline score: 47 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 20:53 | comment | added | dukeofgaming | See edit to my answer. Regarding the cargo cult comment, don't let blind followers that are not able to defend DVCSs fool you. Subversion works, nobody argues that, DVCSs just let you work more naturally. See my edit to this second version of the question. | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 20:28 | answer | added | Xavier Nodet | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 19:05 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Reworked question and removed beliefs
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 18:56 | answer | added | user1249 | timeline score: 58 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 18:21 | history | rollback | user8 |
Rollback to Revision 8
|
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:47 | answer | added | Ken Bloom | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:39 | history | rollback | user2567 |
Rollback to Revision 6
|
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:35 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 63 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:22 | history | edited | user8 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
copyediting
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:18 | history | edited | Ken Bloom |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:15 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Added Martin Fowler article
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:05 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Reworked question; added 53 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 17:02 | comment | added | Paul Nathan | Branches are just not a first-class citizen in SVN-land the way they are in DVCSs. | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 16:38 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 1132 characters in body; added 159 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 16:29 | comment | added | Joonas Pulakka | +1 for the question. Nowadays it has become cargo cult that distributed is simply better, faster, simpler, more natural and trouble-free and 90 % shinier compared to centralized. Except that it necessarily isn't. They're different tools, and each may have advantages in some contexts and disadvantages in other contexts. | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 16:16 | answer | added | Vadim | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 16:02 | answer | added | Martin Wickman | timeline score: 9 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 15:20 | answer | added | philosodad | timeline score: 18 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 14:54 | comment | added | Mumbles | I personally see DVCS as an increase in steps therefore more likely to have problems, with one of the most basic things needed comit, you comit locally then have to push to a server(chances are someone will foget for a long time). where as CVCS you comit and everything is done, | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 14:37 | answer | added | dukeofgaming | timeline score: 337 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 14:07 | history | edited | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Jan 9, 2011 at 14:06 | comment | added | Berin Loritsch | I'm also very interested in this. Subversion fits the way I've been taught to think about version control (having come from CVS and the like). Nevertheless, while I've had to use Mercurial and Git to try some bug fixes for open source projects I haven't been converted yet. | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 13:51 | history | asked | user2567 | CC BY-SA 2.5 |