[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Why SVN?

Trans

3/12/2007 7:26:00 PM

Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git?

Subversion has apparently become the version control system of choice
for Ruby developers --especially now that Ruby itself uses it. I
suspect that might have a lot to do with Rails and Rubyforge. Ruby
only switched over to SVN well after Rails had been using it. And
Rubyforge currently only supports SVN and CVS, which I find a bit
surprising since, from what I understand, supporting Darcs is just a
matter of having Darcs installed. And I can't imagine Git is much
different.

So I'm wondering, what's so special about SVN as opposed to the other
choices? Is it because SVN is more like CVS than the other choices?
The fact that SVN isn't distributed I would think would work against
it (though I hear SVK is supposed to deal with that). Darcs is written
in Haskell, and from the word on the street a lot of Ruby folk seem to
like Haskell. Also, Git was written by Linus Torvalds, which is about
as good as credentials can get.

Thanks,
T.
82 Answers

Rick DeNatale

3/12/2007 7:49:00 PM

0

On 3/12/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git?
>
> Subversion has apparently become the version control system of choice
> for Ruby developers --especially now that Ruby itself uses it. I
> suspect that might have a lot to do with Rails and Rubyforge. Ruby
> only switched over to SVN well after Rails had been using it.

SVN is very much like CVS. It does have better handling of the
hierarchical structure of a project in that it versions the directory
hierarchy. This makes it nicer for things like Rails which make a
fair use of directory hierarchies.

> And
> Rubyforge currently only supports SVN and CVS, which I find a bit
> surprising since, from what I understand, supporting Darcs is just a
> matter of having Darcs installed. And I can't imagine Git is much
> different.

I think it's a matter of the repository itself, they'd need to have
more parallel copies of the code in different repository formats.


>
> So I'm wondering, what's so special about SVN as opposed to the other
> choices? Is it because SVN is more like CVS than the other choices?
> The fact that SVN isn't distributed I would think would work against
> it (though I hear SVK is supposed to deal with that). Darcs is written
> in Haskell, and from the word on the street a lot of Ruby folk seem to
> like Haskell. Also, Git was written by Linus Torvalds, which is about
> as good as credentials can get.

A good bit of it is the relationship between CVS and SVN, if you are
used to CVS then SVN is a fairly easy transition. Those two are
probably the most popular version systems around, so it's also a
matter of market share.

Git was written as a recovery from having the BitKeeper license yanked
out from under the linux project. FWIW.

--
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denh...

Kyle Schmitt

3/12/2007 8:00:00 PM

0

To quote from the SVN webpage:
Subversion is meant to be a better CVS, so it has most of CVS's
features. Generally, Subversion's interface to a particular feature is
similar to CVS's, except where there's a compelling reason to do
otherwise.

Without delving into specifics, SVN makes it a lot easier to do things
than CVS does, especially administrative tasks and branching etc.

It's powerful enough to draw hardcore CVS users to it, and power/easy
enough to draw hardcore VSS* users to it.

--Kyle


* Sometimes those hardcore visual source safe users are companies.
Whole big fat companies who makes oodles of money and don't bat an eye
at 3k/machine licensing fees.

Dejan Dimic

3/12/2007 8:13:00 PM

0

The system that is used is a good one.

I have use Visual Source Safe, CVS and for last tree and more years
exclusively subversion.
There is no bad system but I wouldn't go back to previous ones.

I use subversion on my work and form all my home pet projects.

It is very reachable thought out various protocols, easy command line
syntax, has GUI Tools, configurable from administrator's point of
view, mature system, has lot of knowledge.

This can be taken as personal opinion colored by some personal
affinity. To take more objective approach investigates what big source
repositories sites using like Google or other Forge sites.

If you have time perhaps you can try all of them and find the one that
suit your needs.

Stefan Mahlitz

3/12/2007 8:39:00 PM

0

Tanner Burson wrote:
> At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the
> network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool
> that fits the job, and move on.

I agree - and to stress the topic further, there is this site which does
a comparision of version control systems based on features:

http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/compa...

I'm using SVN at home and ClearCase at work - in regard to what I know
of both of them the comparison looks sane.

I did choose SVN because I've heard about it. And it does work for me,
so I didn't switch to something else.

Well, and there is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_contro...

I cannot answer the original posters question, so this is completely
off-topic.

Stefan

Kyle Schmitt

3/12/2007 8:46:00 PM

0

> There is no bad system but I wouldn't go back to previous ones.
Having used Visual Source Safe extensively I have to take exception to
that statement ;)

Jan Friedrich

3/12/2007 9:51:00 PM

0

Trans schrieb:
> Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git?
I use git for the reason of *very simple* branching and *fast* branch
switching. If I want to try something out, I create a new branch and
check it out. Then programming and testing a bit make commits of some
steps and if I don't like it I can throw the complete branch away
without changing the main development stream. If it is nice I merge it
and delete the no longer needed branch. Therefore I like git. :)

In subversion I have never create a branch: It was to expensive for me.

m2c
Jan

Trans

3/12/2007 10:18:00 PM

0



On Mar 12, 3:46 pm, "Tanner Burson" <tanner.bur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/12/07, Glen Holcomb <damnbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why not SVN?
>
> This is going a bit OT for ruby-talk, but I'll bite.

To be clear I'm asking why _rubyists_ in particluar choose one over
the other --not so off topic.

> I work from several different machines, in several different locations,
> including from a laptop that is often disconnected from the internet. It's
> extremely useful for me to be able to record changes, branch, work, in my
> normal manner, without worrying about the fact that when I DO get a
> connection all my changes will show up as one big lump. So I use Darcs over
> SSH. It gives me a full, functional repository with "commits" as I need
> them, without being connected. Then when I get back to civilization I can
> push all my changes back to my main repo and be good to go, SVN can't give
> me that kind of work flow, so I've moved away from it. (I'm aware of SVK,
> but never could get it working well on linux/mac/and windows)
>
> At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the
> network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool
> that fits the job, and move on.

So you actually use both. I hate the lack of DRY in that, but it looks
like I may have to go down that road too.

Thanks,
T.

Tim Becker

3/12/2007 10:27:00 PM

0

While distributed version control systems offer some benefits, they're
still not really mainstream. Most developers are accustomed to the way
things are done in central repositories, and working offline is, with
the exception of maybe a short stint on a plane or train, not that
common nowadays. The benefits of darcs, etc. don't really justify the
effort that would need to be put into migrating the existent proven
infrastructure and potentially alienating some people who are put of
by the slightly esoteric nature of the alternatives. A clear case of
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That shouldn't keep you from
hosting your code in darcs though if you prefer.

-tim

Robert Dober

3/12/2007 10:29:00 PM

0

On 3/12/07, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 12, 3:46 pm, "Tanner Burson" <tanner.bur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/12/07, Glen Holcomb <damnbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Why not SVN?
> >
> > This is going a bit OT for ruby-talk, but I'll bite.
>
> To be clear I'm asking why _rubyists_ in particluar choose one over
> the other --not so off topic.
>
> > I work from several different machines, in several different locations,
> > including from a laptop that is often disconnected from the internet. It's
> > extremely useful for me to be able to record changes, branch, work, in my
> > normal manner, without worrying about the fact that when I DO get a
> > connection all my changes will show up as one big lump. So I use Darcs over
> > SSH. It gives me a full, functional repository with "commits" as I need
> > them, without being connected. Then when I get back to civilization I can
> > push all my changes back to my main repo and be good to go, SVN can't give
> > me that kind of work flow, so I've moved away from it. (I'm aware of SVK,
> > but never could get it working well on linux/mac/and windows)
> >
> > At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the
> > network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool
> > that fits the job, and move on.
>
> So you actually use both. I hate the lack of DRY in that, but it looks
> like I may have to go down that road too.
Yes indeed, what is happening in the Ruby community is happening all
over the place.
SVN will simply replace CVS slowely but surely.
>
> Thanks,
> T.
>
>
>
Cheers
Robert

--
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous

Trans

3/12/2007 10:35:00 PM

0



On Mar 12, 5:55 pm, Jan Friedrich <frd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trans schrieb:> Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git?
>
> I use git for the reason of *very simple* branching and *fast* branch
> switching. If I want to try something out, I create a new branch and
> check it out. Then programming and testing a bit make commits of some
> steps and if I don't like it I can throw the complete branch away
> without changing the main development stream. If it is nice I merge it
> and delete the no longer needed branch. Therefore I like git. :)
>
> In subversion I have never create a branch: It was to expensive for me.

See now this is interesting. Cause I feeling inclined toward Git for
these same reasons. In fact here's a diagram of me being torn:


I, Torn

O
SVN <-- --|-- --> Git
/ Solid Darcs Faster
Popular Stronger
Supported Better


Not that Darcs hasn't been good to me.

:) T.