[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:
http://www.cante.net/~jaalto/doc/version-control-systems.pdf
Follow the small knobs "*" and underlined words to find out more
information (URL links).
SUMMARY
The git seems to be overall winner. It's a clear choice for big
projects.
- 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
anything.
* 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)"
Jari
NOTES
--------------
VCS = Version Control System (software)
git = Git http://git-scm.org
bzr = Bazaar http://bazaar-vcs.org
hg = Mercurial http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/
Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like,
Jari Aalto <=
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, dhruva, 2008/01/19
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Miles Bader, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Juanma Barranquero, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Miles Bader, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Juanma Barranquero, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Juanma Barranquero, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Juanma Barranquero, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Miles Bader, 2008/01/20
- Re: What a modern collaboration toolkit looks like, Karl Fogel, 2008/01/20