Git and Mercurial are examples of this. Gone is the central control. DVCS fit well with the open source world though they are slowly moving into the corporate world, usually via proxy. Big Corporations are usually 10 years behind the open source world.
Right, lets cut the bullshit. We both know why you are really here. You want to know how to choose between Git and Mercurial. Git was born in the Linux world. For the Linux kernel, actually. It is written in C, and is supposed to be fast, but hard to use and unforgiving. For Real Men TM , not sissy girls. Mercurial was created around the same time as Git.
When the free version of Bitkeeper was withdrawn from the Linux community, both Git and Mercurial were created to fill the gap. Mercurial was written in Python, and supposed to be much easier to use. Other than that, most blogs take some minor points, and argue for hours on why that makes Git or Mercurial better. Most commands lead to further commands, and simple actions can require complex actions to undo or refine. That said, all this complexity translates to more flexibility: once you know how to use it, Git can be fully configured to suit your processes and work environment.
Git also offers superior capabilities around branching, tagging, and merging, something well appreciated by large distributed teams working on complex products. As mentioned above, users' ability to go back and edit the history of commits is a double-edged sword that requires a careful process approach.
The decision about whether to use Git on a development project is primarily a question of how knowledgeable and experienced your team is with Git. A single weak link can bring down the entire team. The obvious example of this is seen in Git's version control: it is, simply put, unsafe and prone to accidental alteration by users potentially affecting the entire team. Therefore, a minimum level of solid knowledge is necessary, and Git's subpar documentation doesn't help you all that much.
Git puts control firmly in the hands of your project manager or whoever is maintaining the codebase. The problem with this is that the majority of Git users are coders contributors and what they need most of all is a clean interface.
This is where Git fails to deliver, putting functionality over usability, and favoring the PM over the contributor. Try this integrated Application Lifecycle Management platform free for 30 days , or contact us with your questions! Start your online trial of codebeamer X. Resources Blog.
View all blog posts. Case Studies. Git handles this situation just fine in practice using "recursive" merge strategy. I am not sure about Mercurial. In "Known Issues" there is warning that merge tracking migh not work with file renames, e. Both Git and Mercurial handle such case just fine in practice: Git using rename detection , Mercurial using rename tracking.
Without speaking about the usual advantages offline commits, publication process , The main scenario I keep seeing is a branch on which Or it started from a patch, but it lead to the development of another feature. How to you merge only one of the two feature on the main branch?
Or How do you isolate the two features in their own branches? You could try to generate some kind of patches, the problem with that is you are not sure anymore of the functional dependencies which could have existed between:. Subversion exists to be universally recognized and adopted as an open-source, centralized version control system characterized by its reliability as a safe haven for valuable data; the simplicity of its model and usage; and its ability to support the needs of a wide variety of users and projects, from individuals to large-scale enterprise operations.
SVN is much simpler than git for the simple stuff checking in files and updating them when everyone's online , and much more complex than git for the complicated stuff branching and merging.
Or put another way, git's learning curve is steep up front, and then increases moderately as you do weird things; SVN's learning curve is very shallow up front and then increases rapidly. If you're storing large files, if you're not branching, if you're not storing source code, and if your team is happy with SVN and the workflow you have, I'd say you should stay on SVN.
If you're writing source code with a relatively modern development practice developers doing local builds and tests, pre-commit code reviews, preferably automated testing, preferably some amount of open-source code , you should move to git for two reasons: first, this style of working inherently requires frequent branching and merging, and second, your ability to interact with outside projects is easier if you're all comfortable with git instead of snapshotting the outside project into SVN.
Get Advice. Follow I use this. Get Advice from developers at your company using Private StackShare. Sign up for Private StackShare. Pros of Mercurial. Pros of SVN Subversion. Pros of Mercurial Pros of SVN Subversion
0コメント