1807 votes ~ 11 comments
Submitted by Steve on Wed 31 Oct 2012
[ Parent ]
I used to be a heavy CVS user, but now I'm cured! These days I use Mercurial by default for all projects I work on at home & work.
If I'm interacting with a project which uses git/mercurial/darcs/whatever I can get by, making changes and submitting patches, but I default to hg.
I use CVS at work because the server is so ancient that I've not got round to migrating it to anything else. At home I use subversion and there is only me using it, and only for small Perl projects so it's fine. Everyone says that git is the reproductive organs of a male Canis lupus familiaris but I've just not got round to trying it out - so I can't comment!
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Probably for the same reason Visual Source Safe is missing!
(Doesn't run on Debian.)
My gripe with those pre-distributed version control systems is that besides not be distributed, they do an awful bad job at merging, to the point of people just avoiding doing branches...
Although such statements could be seen often, I find them to be untrue. I used branching and merging under CVS and Subversion a lot. And CVS was not much harder than Subversion and Git. You just need to understand the mechanics of merge process, and follow well-established practices.
The only real problems usually appear because of conflicting changes in different branches. And such conflicts are going to cause equal trouble with any VCS.
Distributed or centralized VCS nature is irrelevant to branching and merging, except for performance. Centralized setups (especially if they are poorly managed and use inadequate hardware) may be really slow at times.
Articles and comments are the property of their respective posters.
Trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
This site is copyright ©; 2004-2016 Steve Kemp.
Site hosting provided by Bytemark Hosting on the BigV platform.
Article Feeds in Atom, RSS, & RDF formats