I have never really understood (or took the time to understand) sourcecontrol.
My problem is this: I would like (need) to use sourcecontrol for the safety of my code, but I am continually switching my code from a desktop pc to a notebook depending where I am that day. With using MS Visual Sourcesafe this always caused me problems, so I am tempted not to use it but to continue copying files from one machine to the other (which is dangerous).
I would ask whether it is possible to have a sourcecontol solution that I can use over two machines and what sourcecontrol software would people recommend.
Thanks in advance
Bonio
This is terrific timing for me. I just got started this week on finding a replacement for VSS because I want to have remote programming teammates soon.
I dowloaded Tortoise CVS and it looked great. But my supposition that it would work on my FTP server was wrong. It requires an active server component (and I don't think my ISP is going to smile kindly on that).
Do I have any options? Are there "client" programs out there that can handle all the versioning work with a remote repository?
If I go to VSTS, do I have the same requirement for an active server component? Or is a URL that is accessible to all the clients the only requirement?
Thanks,
I like Subversion a lot, but I have to agree with Rocky - it's not the easiest to setup. The documentation is good - but who reads documentation? With most free open source software I have tried, it's always tricky to get working - not just a run the setup.exe. For anyone who can't afford team system - I think subversion is a good free alternative - but set aside a day to get it up and running.
Martin
Q Johnson:
This is terrific timing for me. I just got started this week on finding a replacement for VSS because I want to have remote programming teammates soon.
I work remotely using VSS 6.0. It has worked over a VPN just fine for 3+ years.
Joe
JoeFallon1:
I work remotely using VSS 6.0. It has worked over a VPN just fine for 3+ years.
Here is a blog I found with detailed step by step instructions for downloading and installing subversion and it's extras. While the content is a little old now, I wouldn't think things have changed that much.
http://blogs.clearscreen.com/migs/archive/2005/01/21/824.aspx
Regards,
Fintan
Why isn't anyone using VSS 2005?
I'm still stuck using VSS 6.0 and I'm getting tired of the headaches I have to go through to get it installed on new machines (seems like something always goes wrong). Right now I'm looking at upgrading to VSS 2005 - is there a reason why that isn't a good answer?
Because VSS 2005 has all the problem associated with VSS 6. Really the only change seems to be a newer GUI and support for Unicode. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be any major changes. All the problems you have now will continue.
From: ajj3085 [mailto:cslanet@lhotka.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:28 AM
To: rocky@lhotka.net
Subject: Re: [CSLA .NET] OT: Which SourceControl Tool?
VSS is renown for being unreliable and slow; at a former employer, we called it Source Unsafe...
Yes.
It now has http access although it doesn't require a migration because it uses the same datasource as VSS 6.0.
![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
I would go with Subversion. I just installed and switched our comapny over to it (from VSS) and everyone is very happy.
I agree with both Xal and Rocky when it comes to documentation and installation of SVN.
Xal is right about the documentation, it's pretty good.
Rocky is right that it might not be the most straight forward installation, but for me it was more due to all the different options out there then lack of documentation.
Should you go with Apache, SVNServe or file to serve up Subversion?
Should you select Filebased (FSFS) or Berkley DB for the repository?
My 0.02$ on repository is go FSFS now. Seems to be everyone recomendation for new installs.To serve it up option is slightly harder and depends on your situation. The most advanced and best if you want to limit access is to do Apache (also the most complicated to install and here you have watch for correct version). If you are a standalone you could go file based. I did (for now) SVNServe and it's very simple to install. You should install the SVNServer add-on so it can run as service on your 'server'.
If you go with FSFS and SVNServe/SVNServer the setup is very straight forward and easy.
You should use TortoiseSVN and ANHKSvn as you client tools to access the repository.
My big problems started when I wanted to put a Web interface on my Subversion install. I went with WebSVN and then I had to start download a lot of stuff and had a lot of config problems to get it to work (probably also since i wanted it to run under IIS).
Not Sceptical to SVN ;-)
Sceptical Swede
I also need to get something going in the next few weeks. I have a colleague who has use VSS for the last five years and says it's straightforward and easy to install, easy to use, and works great.
What specific things do you guys think is superior with subversion.
I'm assuming it can do all the same basic version control stuff like checkin/checkout control, change tracking (and rollback), etc.
![Wink [;)]](/emoticons/emotion-5.gif)
Here I was thinking it was part of my MSDN subscription - boy do I miss my old Enterprise level subscription sometimes. :)
The colleague is not a factor in the way you describe. I'm just looking for specific points of why people that have used both prefer subversion.
I had some exposure to subversion + tortoise on a short project a couple years ago and was quite less than impressed. I'm wondering in what ways VSS could be worse than that considering how the colleague speaks highly of it.
Let me be more specific. My experience was like what was generally described above for VSS. Completely unstable. It wouldn't work right and the SVN guru's regular solution seemed to be wiping out the local copies and redownloading or other such drastic measures.
Here I was thinking it was part of my MSDN subscription - boy do I miss my old Enterprise level subscription sometimes. :)
The colleague is not a factor in the way you describe. I'm just looking for specific points of why people that have used both prefer subversion.
Let me be more specific. My experience was like what was generally described above for VSS. Completely unstable. It wouldn't work right and the SVN guru's regular solution seemed to be wiping out the local copies and redownloading or other such drastic measures.
In Subversion you usually don't check out a file, you merge in your changes. It's not as bad as it sounds, its done automagically and there are rarely conflicts that needs to be resolved.
You never having the problem that the file you want to work on is locked by another user. And most of the time you don't have tp be worried about if someone else been touching the file when you workin a disconnected mode.
In subversion check-ins (or commits) are atomic. If a file doesn't make it in or if you lose connection during the commit, Subversion roles back the transaction. In vss you would have corrupted reposotiry.
VSS is famous for corruptions, Subversion rarely or never gets corrupted.
Subversion is excellent for disconnected work, vss (2005 might be better) is not good at it.
Subversion is very good at branching, when you have releases this very important. VSS is pretty bad at it (never tried, but everone says stay away from it).
There are probably more, but can't come up with them right now.
Sceptical Swede
(Actually working from my sons hospital room right now and don't have access to our SVN reposotory from here)
Copyright (c) Marimer LLC