4 ms·
I concur. I've worked in enterprise. If your team relies on a centrally administered source control, then you can be in a world of pain if the central team de
by hermannj314 13y ago
I concur.
I've worked in enterprise. If your team relies on a centrally administered source control, then you can be in a world of pain if the central team decides to switch tools (and when this happens moving your revision history comments to the new system will never be considered important, if even possible).
Keep important things in the code. That's my experience.
- salgernon 13y agorcs -> sccs -> cvs -> svn -> git, with a trip through MPW Projector. Half the commit comments lately are "why the hell did git do this to me".
- Roboprog 13y agoAt least you got to skip going through such wonders as Source Safe, ClearCase, MKS Source Integrity or Serena Version Manager. I'm not sure what MPW Projector is, but the rest are pretty mainstream. It's amazing how many proprietary revision control systems there are, and how much worse they are than the free ones. RCS clearly wasn't good enough for a team (distributed or not) or concurrent development, but CVS was good enough, with incremental improvements by SVN & Git. The proprietary systems usually offer integration with a but tracker (mandatory ticket ID on check-in/commit) to lure the ignorant who don't know about commit triggers. Otherwise, they tend to be very slow, frequently time-out their licenses / login-sessions, and/or have a very deficient command line interface making it difficult to script a build system.