| |||||||||||||
Subversion considers its futureSubversion considers its futurePosted May 1, 2008 0:24 UTC (Thu) by dbnichol (subscriber, #39622)In reply to: Subversion considers its future by cpeterso Parent article: Subversion considers its future
Yeah, I'm sure subversion will live on in corporations for a long time. Today I overheard two of my fellow employees (we're not programmers) arguing whether the content for their project should be kept in CVS or _RCS_! I swallowed down the vomit and decided not to waste my time cluing them in on the wonders of the 21st century.
(Log in to post comments)
Subversion considers its future Posted May 1, 2008 8:24 UTC (Thu) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link] I've just managed to convert my workplace from Team Coherence (an obscure, locking-not-merging, revision control system to subversion :-). It took me six months to convince my co-workers that it would be a good idea. Git, bzr or mercurial would have taken much longer, especially since I don't actually understand myself how the interaction between developers on a team working towards a common release really works. At least, not without someone blessed to produce the final source tree and thus having to go through all patches.
Subversion considers its future Posted May 1, 2008 9:30 UTC (Thu) by joib (guest, #8541) [Link] You just designate one repo as the canonical one, and tell everyone to push their changes there if they want their code to be part of the release. The canonical repo is thus the equivalent of THE repo in a centralized VCS like subversion.
Subversion considers its future Posted May 1, 2008 12:59 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] At least they're debating actual VCSes. One place I worked a few years ago had all its source code `version controlled' by, er, copying the tree and tarring it up every night. (No gzip: just tar. They didn't have enough clue to know about gzip.) They had dozens of disks full of years of nightly uncompressed tarballs...
|
|||||||||||||