[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:

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 
 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 
 Email notification of source code commits requires purchasing an additional 

License: Proprietary.


reply via email to

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