[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] RE: Ongoing Comparison Between Version Control Systems
From: |
Barak Zalstein |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] RE: Ongoing Comparison Between Version Control Systems |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:06:23 +0300 |
Shlomi Fish <address@hidden> writes:
> I started composing a comparison between several prominent and accessible
> version control systems on a feature-by-feature basis. The comparison can
> be found here:
>
> http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/comparison.html
>
Microsoft Visual SourceSafe: (my only experience with it is non-distributed, on
local file system)
Atomic commits: Yes. In addition, VSS DB can be analyzed and fixed by
additional utility.
Files and Directories Moves or Renames: Yes. Copying can be done by drag and
drop
a file from one directory to another. Can also right-click on a file and choose
rename from the menu. Moving requires share+delete.
Remote Repository Replication: Yes.
Propagating Changes to Parent Repositories: The concept is storing one or more
projects in a database. Sharing between databases is impossible.
Archive utility can be used (but not recommended) for bringing databases into a
centralized system.
Repository Permissions: Yes.
Ability to Work only on One Directory of the Repository: Yes.
Documentation: Good enough. Well organized and easy to navigate document in chm
format. The getting started helps the user/administrator know where to go first
and what to do first.
Ease of Deployment: Very Good. Installed using binary executable. The
administrator application manages users permissions and repositories. Creating
a new repository and adding files is done using the menu to browse/add new
files and projects.
It is also integrated into Visual Studio (working on a file automatically
suggests to check-out this file).
Mac/Unix support require purchasing an additional product.
Features and Command Set:
GUI-based. Can also be activated from the command line.
Incompatible with other version control systems (I remember seeing a VSS2CVS
script somewhere).
Merging of multiple check-out conflicts can be dangerous as some not-very-smart
merges can be done automatically.
On large repositories: slow access time for project/file history and previous
file versions.
Tracking changes: a diff between arbitrary file versions can be done by
choosing these versions in the file history.
Change Log comments: development methodology requires that these comments will
be added during check-out
and/or check-in, but not while working on a file.
Thus a desired concept of automatic check-out, develpment and debugging,
add-change-log-entry with current function name, review pending check-in,
commit to repository is unavailable unless constantly switching between Emacs,
VSS, and Visual Studio.
Networking Support: Cross-site development requires purchasing an additional
product.
Email notification of source code commits requires purchasing an additional
product.
License: Proprietary.
Barak.
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Gnu-arch-users] RE: Ongoing Comparison Between Version Control Systems,
Barak Zalstein <=