> I am looking for an appropriate version control software for python development, and need professionals' help to make a good decision. Currently I am considering four software: git, SVN, CVS, and Mercurial.
I'm not real experienced, but I understand that SVN is good if your
hosting your own code base, and CVS is hardly used anymore as it
doesn't support atomic commits (when having many developers work on
the same code base). Git and hg have ben vying for several years with
no clear winner, yet
On 13 Jun 2013 22:34, "Chris Angelico" <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> It's
> possible to get git for Windows, including gitk and 'git gui' (not
> sure about any other graphical tools, they're the only two I use), but
> the most convenient way to use them is from a ported bash.
I must disagree. I used git a lot on windows this past year, on a Console shell (which is basically a CMD.EXE shell with tabs and appropriate select/copy/paste) and it was quite useful.
I must although say that I wasn't doing any merges and such. I was just committing, pushing and diffing to check what I'd done.
I used gitk and the git commands. You can't "git diff" or "git show" or "git log" because paging will suck terribly. But gitk was a nice substitute for all that.
YMMV
There's a TortoiseHg now that works well. http://tortoisehg.bitbucket.org
I haven't used it very much, but github has released a git client for Windows. The underlying library is the same one Microsoft uses for the Visual Studio git integration, so I assume it's fairly robust at this point.
http://windows.github.com
On 06/14/2013 10:24 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-06-14, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote:
All that being said, it is, as Anssi points out, a horrible, bloated,
overpriced, complicated mess which requires teams of specially
trained ClearCase admins to run. In other words, it's exactly the
sort of thing big, stupid, Fortune-500 companies buy because the IBM
salesperson plays golf with the CIO.
Years ago, I worked at one largish company where a couple of the
embedded development projects used ClearCase. The rest of us used CVS
or RCS or some other cheap commercial systems. Judging by those
results, ClearCase requires a full-time administrator for every 10 or
so users. The other systems seemed to require almost no regular
administration, and what was required was handled by the developers
themselves (mayby a couple hours per month). The cost of ClearCase
was also sky-high.
if I remember rightly, it was about two-thousand dollars per seat. And the people I saw using it were using XCOPY to copy the stuff they needed onto their local drives, then disabling the ClearCase service so they could get some real work done. Compiles were about 10x slower with the service active.
On 2013-06-15, Roy Smith wrote:Also, is working without connection to the server such big an issue? One
would expect that losing access to the central server would indicate
significant problems that would impact development anyway.