What source control are you using?

Trojan

Source control, aka version control, aka revision control, aka source configuration management. If you're not familiar, look it up.

I use a very simple Mercurial setup - TortoiseHG versioning stuff locally, plus a free Bitbucket account for backup that I push to every so often. A lot of folks out there swear by Git these days, others by Subversion. A friend recently recommended me Bazaar which I'm going to check out eventually.

What do you use? Nothing? SCCS? Git?

Sparks

At work? Clearcase. Not Clearcase UCM, just Clearcase. Weep for me.

Outside of work, I use mercurial for my stuff and sometimes git or svn for when I'm fiddling with open source stuff (where the maintainer gets to chose the version control setup).

jester77

Have been using git for the last 6 years with github enterprise at work and github/bitbucket for personal stuff. Was using SVN, MKS and CVS before that, git is definitely so much better because of its distributed architecture.

aperture_nuig

Sparks wrote: »

At work? Clearcase. Not Clearcase UCM, just Clearcase. Weep for me.

Outside of work, I use mercurial for my stuff and sometimes git or svn for when I'm fiddling with open source stuff (where the maintainer gets to chose the version control setup).

Another Clearcase sufferer here, glad to see I'm not alone Again, I use git with bitbucket with my own stuff.

COYW

Used Sourcesafe, TFS and Git. TFS seems to be the most liked from my experience. Some of the companies I have dealt with recently still use Sourcesafe, disturbingly, and two of these were well know companies, not small operations.

Git with bitbucket at home too.

ChRoMe

SVN.

KonFusion

Git at work, git at home. (especially since they gave me all those free repos, those glorious gits!)

OfflerCrocGod

Perforce at work, git ofc for GitHub .

Perforce is nice enough but I'd be happy for my work to move over to git.

Dave!

Git at home and in work.

I've never used another VCS, so can't compare, but version control in general has been such a revelation since I started using it only a few months ago! Feckin life changing

I use Bitbucket for my personal stuff (cos the private repos are free!), and GH in work.

shanefitz360

Dropbox

Creamy Goodness

Git.

awec

ChRoMe wrote: »

SVN.

People still use that? :eek:

Colonel Panic

Someone posted "Dropbox" and you respond to someone using SVN? :D

Ludo

Currently CVS at work.

May be switching to GIT soon(which probably means another year of CVS at least). Have messed about with GitHub for my own personal stuff so hard to tell how it works in a large team as never experienced it.

Previously Clearcase, Perforce (my favourite so far), VSS, MKS, SVN and various others.

RealistSpy

Started with subversion and I am now moving to Git

Sparks

awec wrote: »

People still use that? :eek:

A lot of open source projects do. It's probably [sticks neck out] the best of the non-distributed version control systems out there.

ChRoMe

awec wrote: »

People still use that? :eek:

People still use CVS!

There is nothing wrong with SVN, it serves our needs well tbh.

Colonel Panic

Svn is fine. I used to panic a bit when it came to merging lots of commits though.

matrim

We use svn for most of our server side work, but do have some newer mobile client development on git. There have been some initial discussions about re-evaluating our server side source control choice with a mention of moving to git but it will probably be another while before we do it.

At home I use git. I do have a couple of older projects that use svn but haven't touched them in about 2 years so haven't bothered to move them

jester77

For anyone that uses both git and svn, you are probably aware of this, but if not, you can use the git svn bridge. I don't have many SVN repos these days but it's handy to use as I tend to forget the SVN equivalent of git commands.

rainbow kirby

SVN at work, Git/Bitbucket at home.

kayos

Currently TFS, previously SVN, VSS and Continuous.

Trojan

I used to use TRUEchange, back in 1999, when I moved on to sccs

Boskowski

Subversion. What's supposed to be wrong with that anyway?

Sparks

Boskowski wrote: »

Subversion. What's supposed to be wrong with that anyway?

It's not shiny enough

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with subversion for most tasks; but for some, the distributed version control model is probably better to work with, and for a very few projects that see lots of commits and merges, git is pretty much built for that.

croo

re: what's wrong with subversion...
If you share the repos with a remote group of developer one point is you must be online to get the repos history whereas with git or mercurial (or bazaar) you've got the whole repos history locally. Of course the other side of that coin is that if the repos is large it seem to take an age to download the whole repos with all it's branches and history.

On an open source ERP app that I work with we were using SVN and switched to Mercurial and the repos size has been a bit of a issue because with mercurial it's an all or nothing affair... there have been some suggestions to shift to git because it allows you clone a single branch instead of the entire repository.

When you live in a place with no or bad broadband (like a lot of Ireland) that can be an issue!

Sparks

It can also be handy if you work on several machines - for example, I'm mucking about with an open source program at the moment and it uses svn which means I can't co to my laptop and then clone that copy of the repository to my office or home desktops; with mercurial or git I could, and that would let me poke about at the problem on any of those machines, forward the changes to the others, generally kick my idea into shape and test it, and then send the patch back on up to the maintainer.

I mean, I can do something similar, but it's a lot more work and means firing patch files between the machines I'm using.

(but how many people work on the same problem on several different machines like that?)

GreeBo

Mercurial here in work, though some projects are also using SVN and.....Serena

croo

Sparks wrote: »

(but how many people work on the same problem on several different machines like that?)

I do!

TrueDub

GreeBo wrote: »

Mercurial here in work, though some projects are also using SVN and.....Serena

I feel your pain!

Using Mercurial in work, having used SVN, Clearcase and a few others in the past. Home is SVN, although I think a shift to git is in the offing.

ChRoMe

Sparks wrote: »

It's not shiny enough

Honestly, there's nothing wrong with subversion for most tasks; but for some, the distributed version control model is probably better to work with, and for a very few projects that see lots of commits and merges, git is pretty much built for that.

The big problems with distributed version control, really kick in when you are working on very sensitive code. I've worked in two environments where the possibility of someone having a local copy of the whole repo was not acceptable.

Colonel Panic

How does Subversion handle that aspect better? There are ways to manage it in Mercurial and Git, but they've always felt a bit awkward.

TheReverend

I use tfs, by far the best source control I have used

croo

TheReverend wrote: »

I use tfs, by far the best source control I have used

What else have you used?

TheReverend

croo wrote: »

What else have you used?

git and svn

croo

I haven't heard of tfs so excuse the dumb questions - what does it offer that makes it far superior to say git?

Tar.Aldarion

Use SVN, works fine. Main issue with using something else is everybody knows how to use SVN, it works, so why bother making everybody change to something else we don't know or need.

ChRoMe

croo wrote: »

I haven't heard of tfs so excuse the dumb questions - what does it offer that makes it far superior to say git?

FWIW tfs is an acronym for Team Foundation Server

John_Mc

I was using Bitbucket together with TortoiseHg but I switched to Team Foundation Services once it was released (for free!).

Once I get to the point of having something for staging, I'll get it up and running with C.I with an environment on Azure.

Aswerty

Use Mercurial/BitBucket for home and work. I've used GitHub/Git for some micro programs built for learning purposes.

Feathers

Colonel Panic wrote: »

Svn is fine. I used to panic a bit when it came to merging lots of commits though.

Well you are Colonel Panic! :pac:

Using SVN in work & starting to play about with Git at home just to get comfortable with DVCS.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Use SVN, works fine. Main issue with using something else is everybody knows how to use SVN, it works, so why bother making everybody change to something else we don't know or need.

I thought that too, til one of the guys managed to delete trunk last week (Friday evening) & then botch a merge after we'd restored it I get it if you don't know all the status codes; I would've thought that 'C' is pretty common though :mad:

fergalr

Github for current work, and probably all new projects.
Previously SVN.

Honestly, I think Git is way oversold. The centralised and relatively simple model supported by SVN is probably good enough for most peoples needs. A lot of people using Git on Github don't do anything more complicated.


I suspect Git, in its full glory, is much too clever for most of us.

Every now and again there's an article saying "OMG dont use rebase!" and everyone says "OMG, why?"
Then later there's another popular article saying "Use rebase lots!" and its clear from the discussion that many people dont really understand whats going on.


But, just using Github, and sticking to the simple patterns, seems to be very good.
Github has a very nice UI, its becoming a de facto standard, and they are adding progressively more and useful features, for code browsing etc.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Using SVN at the moment in work. Tortoise SVN is handy.

Before that I was using Perforce in a previous company.

Feathers

fergalr wrote: »

Github for current work, and probably all new projects.
Previously SVN.

Honestly, I think Git is way oversold. The centralised and relatively simple model supported by SVN is probably good enough for most peoples needs. A lot of people using Git on Github don't do anything more complicated.


I suspect Git, in its full glory, is much too clever for most of us.

Every now and again there's an article saying "OMG dont use rebase!" and everyone says "OMG, why?"
Then later there's another popular article saying "Use rebase lots!" and its clear from the discussion that many people dont really understand whats going on.


But, just using Github, and sticking to the simple patterns, seems to be very good.
Github has a very nice UI, its becoming a de facto standard, and they are adding progressively more and useful features, for code browsing etc.

I'm sure Git has loads of bells & whistles alright for the initiated, but I always thought the main reason to use it was that since you had your own repo, it meant you can effectively check-in changes without affecting anyone else.

Like doing feature branching, but with less overhead. I get to check in in tiny increments (e.g. every time I've a new passing test), but trunk (or rather the trunk of the repo of my CI build) stays clean & only gets pushed chunks of working functionality.

Think it's definitely a worthwhile feature (from my understanding), but think also that it will involve people rethinking how they mentally map what's going on behind the scenes of version control; that's the hard part to change.

Colonel Panic

I agree about DCMS in general. People jump on the bandwagon and blog posts about it are almost as common as people switching to or from NoSQL or some guff about the latest *.js library.

That said, for me the branching model of release, development and merging feature branches suits the workflow of some projects that. I work on and switching to the same model in work would so any of our problems but I'm confronted with people who share Tar's views.

matrim

As mentioned the main reason I prefer git is the ability to do local commits before big ones. For very big or complicated changes in svn I have found myself starting a local git repo to track my own changes before commiting to trunk in svn.

awec

Colonel Panic wrote: »

Someone posted "Dropbox" and you respond to someone using SVN? :D

Dropbox can be used as a location for your git remote repository, I assumed that's what he meant. Looks like I was wrong :P

croo wrote: »

I haven't heard of tfs so excuse the dumb questions - what does it offer that makes it far superior to say git?

TFS is Team Foundation Server, it's Microsoft's source control system. The advantages are the great integration with Visual Studio, and the planning features around sprints etc (I think ALM is the acronym I'm after) are absolutely immense.

awec

matrim wrote: »

As mentioned the main reason I prefer git is the ability to do local commits before big ones. For very big or complicated changes in svn I have found myself starting a local git repo to track my own changes before commiting to trunk in svn.

That's a feature of distributed control in general.

Git's branching support is also top class - a very important feature for many developers.

kayos

And of course TFS has Git Support too

croo

ChRoMe wrote: »

FWIW tfs is an acronym for Team Foundation Server

awec wrote:

FTFS is Team Foundation Server, it's Microsoft's source control system. The advantages are the great integration with Visual Studio, and the planning features around sprints etc (I think ALM is the acronym I'm after) are absolutely immense.

Aha - it's MS/Windows that explains why I 've not heard of it. I develop on linux. Looking at the links provided; so it's not purely a VC but more a github, launchpad (with its bazaar VCS) equivalent or maybe more a sourceforge type service? Is it cloud only are can you install in your own private network?

ChRoMe

croo wrote: »

Aha - it's MS/Windows that explains why I 've not heard of it. I develop on linux. Looking at the links provided; so it's not purely a VC but more a github, launchpad (with its bazaar VCS) equivalent or maybe more a sourceforge type service? Is it cloud only are can you install in your own private network?

We run it locally on a private network.