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.
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...