[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like

From: Jari Aalto
Subject: Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:45:17 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.1 (windows-nt)

* Sun 2007-12-30 Eric Raymond <address@hidden> gmane.emacs.devel
* Message-Id: address@hidden
> This is a typical modern open-source project.  It's not even a
> particularly large one -- no more than a dozen core devs, 58
> developers total.  Here are the collaborative tools we use every day:
> * Source control with Subversion

I saw discussion that a change from CVS to distributed version control
is under consideration. To shed a little light to the DCVS scene, here
is one of my presentations:


Follow the small knobs "*" and underlined words to find out more
information (URL links).


The git seems to be overall winner. It's a clear choice for big

- Git: phase of development is staggering and in few years
  the UI/OS compatibility issues are past
  * The branching and merging "in place" (no separate directories)
    is thing that excells over any other VCS/DCVS. A Brilliant invention
    and simple to use.
  * Vibrant community: ask a question and you get instant answers to
  * The weak point is UI: it is very complicated. Currently
    requires very steep learning curve even from users that
    have prior experience (CVS/SVN stc.)

- Bzr seems to take second place. It has a long term progression path
  and support, very strict code quality and clearly defined
  development phases.
  * I estimate that it will improved in two years time to meet
    needs of almost any user.
  * Out of the box Central / semi-central / distributed support
    (much nicer than git's)
  * The best is UI: it's very smooth, uniform, logical and
    a CVS/SVN user is immediately at home with it.
  * Weak point: performance problems with big repositories with
    lot of old history. These will however be solved soon (1 year;
    during 2008).

Despite the popularity that Hg has been chosen by "Big projects" like
OpenJDK etc., I would not incline to recommended it. Reasons: Too slow
release schedule, small dev team, unclear roadmap. My observation is
based on:

  * Page 11: "DCVS Release Schedules"
  * Page 12: "Pace of Development (1)"
  * Page 13: "Pace of Development (2)"



VCS = Version Control System (software)
git = Git http://git-scm.org
bzr = Bazaar http://bazaar-vcs.org
hg  = Mercurial http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]