Comments on: Distributed Version Control for the Other 80% http://kylecordes.com/2007/10/16/dvcs-80-percent/ Kyle Cordes's Software Site Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:35:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: Lyle Johnson http://kylecordes.com/2007/10/16/dvcs-80-percent/#comment-12128 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:30:05 +0000 http://kylecordes.com/2007/10/16/dvcs-80-percent/#comment-12128 A lot of the claims that Ben made about the "other 80%" are consistent with my on-the-job experience, and while I don't believe that my co-workers are "profoundly stupid imbeciles who could never grasp the point of DVCS", I can attest to the fact that it's often a struggle just to get them to use Subversion consistently. It was interesting, however, to read that the Subversion team is looking at integrating some DVCS features into Subversion 1.5. There's no question that Subversion's support for merging is fragile and error-prone. A lot of the claims that Ben made about the “other 80%” are consistent with my on-the-job experience, and while I don’t believe that my co-workers are “profoundly stupid imbeciles who could never grasp the point of DVCS”, I can attest to the fact that it’s often a struggle just to get them to use Subversion consistently. It was interesting, however, to read that the Subversion team is looking at integrating some DVCS features into Subversion 1.5. There’s no question that Subversion’s support for merging is fragile and error-prone.

]]> by: Kyle Cordes http://kylecordes.com/2007/10/16/dvcs-80-percent/#comment-12123 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:01:25 +0000 http://kylecordes.com/2007/10/16/dvcs-80-percent/#comment-12123 I have used ClearCase; and I found it to be amazingly slow and user-hostile. Those could be fixed. It might then be the right solution for you, for the problems you face. For me however, the "versioned file system" metaphor is not the right path. Even a totally fixed ClearCase would not be good for me; for me a magic file system, no matter how bugless, would be undesirable. The whizbang automatically-up-to-date CC "view" idea is amazing technical achievement... but not one I want. I have used ClearCase; and I found it to be amazingly slow and user-hostile. Those could be fixed. It might then be the right solution for you, for the problems you face. For me however, the “versioned file system” metaphor is not the right path. Even a totally fixed ClearCase would not be good for me; for me a magic file system, no matter how bugless, would be undesirable. The whizbang automatically-up-to-date CC “view” idea is amazing technical achievement… but not one I want.

]]> by: Curt Cox http://kylecordes.com/2007/10/16/dvcs-80-percent/#comment-12122 Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:41:41 +0000 http://kylecordes.com/2007/10/16/dvcs-80-percent/#comment-12122 Very few people (as a percentage) use ClearCase. It is slow, buggy, user-hostile, and really expensive. Yet, it has the right idea for the long run. Version control should be a painless automatic consequence of a versioned file system. Time machine in Leopard may mean that fewer single developer shops need version control. The same is true of ZFS in Solaris. Actually, the version control build into Eclipse meets almost all of my needs. In the long run the file system will take on enough database features to greatly reduce the need for databases, too. But that's not so close to happening. Very few people (as a percentage) use ClearCase. It is slow, buggy, user-hostile, and really expensive. Yet, it has the right idea for the long run. Version control should be a painless automatic consequence of a versioned file system. Time machine in Leopard may mean that fewer single developer shops need version control. The same is true of ZFS in Solaris. Actually, the version control build into Eclipse meets almost all of my needs.

In the long run the file system will take on enough database features to greatly reduce the need for databases, too. But that’s not so close to happening.

]]>