Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #10606

Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> On 11-12-07 07:57 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 12/7/2011 1:58 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Roedy Green wrote:
>>>> see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/subversion.html
>>>> http://mindprod.com/jgloss/tortoisesubversion.html
>>>
>>> I would say that in this day and age, it is no longer appropriate to 
>>> suggest Subversion. Subversion was the best tool available for a long 
>>> time, and it is still perfectly serviceable, but there are better 
>>> tools available now; projects using it can keep using it without 
>>> worry, but there is no reason for a new project, or a project adopting 
>>> a new source control system, to start using it.
>>
>> VCS is an area where fashion often seems to overshadow
>> facts.
>>
>> Today with hg and git then SVN is suddenly so oldfashioned - you can 
>> not use a non-distributed VCS without being considered stone age.
>>
>> The distributed part is great for code that is being worked on by 
>> completely independent organizations (read: large open source 
>> projects).
>>
>> But most people do not really have that need.
>
> I'm with you on this, Arne. You beat me to it actually. 100 percent of 
> the version control scenarios that I have encountered in business in 
> over a decade require a "central" or "master" repository and an official 
> keeper of the flame. Branches have to be strictly decreed and 
> controlled, lest anarchy result. If git or Mercurial were used in place 
> of SVN, the manner in which they'd have to be used would offer zero 
> benefits over SVN.
>
> I agree that there are plenty of scenarios that benefit from a 
> distributed VCS. But a whole bunch don't.

Incorrect. Have either of you actually used a DVCS for any length of time 
on a team project?

It's true that a great many projects don't need the anarchic 
fully-distributed mode of operation that DVCS allows. In fact, the only 
one i know of that really uses it is the Linux kernel; even other open 
source projects using DVCS have a fairly centralised workflow.

But the thing that DVCS gives you that is invaluable to everyone, 
everywhere, is local commits. You can work, commit, work, commit, work, 
realise you've gone wrong and roll back to your last commit, work, commit, 
work, have an idea, commit, try something experimental, learn something, 
roll back to your last commit, work, commit, and so on. All locally, 
without having to push up to the server, make a zip file, make a patch, or 
do any other monkeying about. All inside the version control system.

It is a massively useful thing to be able to do.

Arved mentioned that "branches have to be strictly decreed and controlled, 
lest anarchy result", and that's true, but with one qualification - it's 
true of branches *on the server*. People can make whatever branches they 
fancy locally, as long as they don't trouble anyone else with them. That 
can be useful too, on occasion.

My team moved over to Git a while ago. We have a traditional centralised 
workflow: we work locally, and push and pull to a central server. We don't 
push and pull to each other. Even for us, a DVCS has been a great tool.

Even if you don't make use of the new powers bestowed on you by a DVCS 
(which would be a great mistake), the current crop of DVCSs offer 
evolutionary improvements on Subversion. They don't need a server, so 
they're easier to set up and manage. They make creating new repositories 
much easier. They're faster. They are, incredibly, usually more compact (a 
Hg/Git repository + working copy is usually smaller than a Svn working 
copy alone - recall that Svn stores a pristine, uncompressed, copy of each 
and every file). They don't litter your working copy with millions of 
secret directories.

The only downside is that the graphical tools, and integration with other 
systems, is not always as good as for Subversion. But note that "not as 
good" means "80-90% as good". I use Git and Mercurial through their 
Eclipse plugins, and they are basically as good as the Subversion or CVS 
plugins. They each have a few warts, but they are purely cosmetic.

So, no, the noise about DVCS is not fashion. It is firmly grounded in 
facts.

tom

-- 
We'll never win by being like them. Our best tactic is to be
better. Better necessarily means different. -- Jon Rentzsch

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Two More Very General Consulting Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-30 21:00 +0000
  Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-11-30 21:45 +0000
    Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-11-30 23:00 +0000
      Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-12-01 03:06 +0000
        Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Novice <novice@example..com> - 2011-12-06 15:24 +0000
          Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-12-06 20:59 +0000
      Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-07 05:45 -0800
        Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-07 18:58 +0000
          Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-07 18:57 -0500
            Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-07 20:33 -0400
              Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-08 16:04 +0000
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-09 06:53 -0400
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-12-09 12:51 +0000
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2011-12-09 17:26 +0100
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2011-12-09 23:12 +0000
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-12-10 12:00 +0000
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-10 19:53 +0000
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-12-11 00:04 +0000
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> - 2011-12-10 20:12 +0000
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com> - 2011-12-12 03:05 -0700
                Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-12-12 06:39 -0400
            Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-12-07 20:55 -0600
              Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-12-09 10:42 +0000
        Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-07 18:48 -0500
    Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-07 05:43 -0800
  Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-12-02 20:15 -0500
  Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-12-06 16:45 -0800

csiph-web