3 ms·
SVN is a relatively painless migration, and is better simply because of a single changlist number to track like perforce. Personally I advocate for Git, in leu
by bluejekyll 9y ago
SVN is a relatively painless migration, and is better simply because of a single changlist number to track like perforce.
Personally I advocate for Git, in leu of that, mercurial. CVS was so painful, it's just hard for me to imagine that people aren't actively figuring out a way off of it. It's literally one step above RCS...
- ams6110 9y agoWhen all your tooling is built around source repository X, and you understand how it all works, and you understand its quirks and how to avoid them, and you have demonstrated repeatedly the ability to hit release target dates consistently year after year, what then is the sound rationale to switch to source repository Y, and spend the considerable effort to change everything, just so you can keep doing what you are doing now?
- bluejekyll 9y agoI'm impressed that they are able to do that. I'm not going to enumerate all the advantages of Git like tools over CVS here. I do know the pain of migration. I've done it at multiple companies, and am currently figuring it out for an extremely large codebase to get off of Perforce and onto Git. There are significant productivity gains with Git across organizations that make it a worthwhile investment.
- X86BSD 9y agoI personally prefer Fossil. It's a really nice little SCM with all sorts of neat features like built in wiki and great documentation.