[Noisebridge-discuss] [dorkbotsf-blabber] Embedded code - version control experience?
jjuran at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 05:30:17 UTC 2012
On Feb 19, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Larry Edelstein wrote:
> I've worked in software for a long time now, and feel qualified to
> speak on VCS. It's changed, and you valiant garage-dwelling
> embedded guys and dolls (please allow me my romantic image of
> y'all) shouldn't miss out on what's new.
> The "distributed", peer-to-peer version control systems like Git,
> Mercurial, and Bazaar are much better than dinosaurs like CVS, SVN,
> SourceSafe, etc. for just about any project.
CVS is a long-obsolete, inadequate, and overly flawed tool, but it
doesn't deserve the dishonor of being mentioned in the same sentence
> But if you make the investment to get used to distributed VCS, you
> will never go back.
Agreed. I went from CVS straight to Git, and now I find SVN
unbearable. If I need to work on a project in SVN, I download a
source tarball and check it into a local Git repo, hack on it, and
send patches to the mailing list.
> When you use one of these new-wave VCS, you store your code in a
> repository a server, like you're used to, but you and anyone else
> who works with that code replicates most or all of that repository
> on their development machine. (Now that we all have plenty of hard-
> drive space and low-latency high-bandwidth networks (er, except
> Carl), replication is cheap.)
Especially if the project has SVN "branches" or "tags" for each
release. Try checking out the nginx SVN repo, for example. You get
3 *gigs* of data; the actual checkout is only about 5 megs. And the
checkout takes forever. Git keeps your entire history in each client
repo as well, but does so in a way that's efficient both to transfer
and to store on disk. (For one thing, it doesn't keep multiple
copies of the same blob of data.)
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss