Related
The company I work for exclusively uses Clearcase. I feel it is not worth the effort to learn and use it as my project would not involve too many people(max of upto 3 people), neither would it involve fancy development flow. How do I convince my manager on using a separate source control for this when they bring up the point of "IT supported and uniform source control through out the company" against my suggestion? Or is that particular point valid and I should go with Clearcase?
Thanks...
PS: I was thinking of using Subversion.
If it's the company standard, then there should be people in the company that know it that can help you get started with it. They should be able to set up your particular IDE to work with it, and make everything as seamless as possible for you. You shouldn't have to learn anything crazy in order to use it - there should be clear instructions.
If there's not, then you're not getting the benefit of "IT supported and uniform source control through out the company" and it makes no difference what you use.
After working through this process, if an argument can be made that there's a better source control that would work better through the firm, you should make it. If it's a company standard, it shouldn't be a pain in the neck to use.
First of all, my condolences.
Is Clearcase that difficult to learn? If yes, I'd consider that a strike against it. If not, you might be better off just going with the flow and learning it.
The 3 people on your team aren't likely to be the ones that maintain the code over its software life, so that argument goes against you as well.
How big is the organization? It's easier for 3 people to learn Clearcase than for X to learn Subversion.
It would depend a lot on your boss and his/her willingness to consider alternatives.
Subversion would certainly be easy to set up and use. I'd hate to be using Clearcase myself.
But there are a lot of factors against you. Good luck.
If I were you then I'd want to use SVN because I just love it but just like anything with developement most of the time you have to go with the flow. Same as if you were extending a framework and you decided to do it your own way completely different to the rest of the framwork it would be frowned upon even if your way was much better. Also what would happen if you and your team got hit by a bus? OK SVN is easy to learn but there is still a learning curve that could slow down other people continuing your work.
You could also view this as a chance to learn a new source control system and make yourself more marketable. You could still prefer subversion, you can't be forced to change your opinion. As #Erick says if this is the company standard they should be able to support you and I'd hope you'd be able to get this factored into your timescales.
There's always the tried & true (albeit risky) approach of having your team use Subversion (how appropriate!) within itself and making the occasional show check-in to Clearcase.
Your argument against Clearcase
are
it is not worth the effort to learn
my project would not involve too many
people neither would it involve
fancy development flow.
Is it difficult to learn? If your company already using it, you will have many people to ask help from. Since your company already have clearcase, you are 80% done with clercase admin works. It will be fairly simple to create vobs, project etc.
In fact your project is small makes it more important to use standard within company. We had some fancy projects done using our standard SCM and some projects without the standard SCM. For the one which used standard SCM, when the projects is scrapped, the code is still safe with in organization. Other products, we lost people and code.
Are you using ClearCase with UCM? It is simpler than base clearcase.
As I mentioned in "Are There Any Reasons To Still Use SVN?", you can't just decide to put a new server on the side, especially for sensitive data like code sources. At some point, they need to be versioned in a central referential.
Any server for that kind of persistent and important data should be:
funded (you can't just manage a VCS on your workstation, you need an actual server)
supported (your jobs is to develop, not to manage /troubleshoot your team in term of SVN operations)
integrated (no problem on that front for SVN)
administrated (again, your job isn't to manage/monitor the SVN server)
documented (where is your SVN server?, what are the backup procedures?, is there any backup/DRP server?, ...)
For all those reasons, your manager might consider leveraging the existing infrastructure/support around the main VCS (ClearCase, condolences ;) ).
But that won't prevent you to manage a DVCS within a ClearCase snapshot view though.
I don't know Clearcase, so I can't say whether it's good or bad or how it compares to Subversion.
But the whole point of source control is that there's supposed to be a single repository where everyone knows they can go to check out their code. If one team uses Clearcase and your team uses Subversion and another uses Git and another uses CVS, etc etc, then anyone wanting to check out source code not only has to look in ten places, but they have to learn to use ten different source code control systems.
Unless you can make a case that Subversion is clearly better than Clearcase in some relevant and important way, I'd say just bite the bullet and learn Clearcase. If it was me, I'd see it as an opportunity to learn something new. After I did, maybe I'd conclude that Clearcase sucks big time and I should try to convince the powers that be to switch to something else. Or maybe I'd conclude that Clearcase was the greatest advance since the invention of USB. Either way, you now know a little more. If nothing else, it's one more bullet to put on your resume the next time you go looking for another job.
Are you working full-time for this company or is this a one-off project as a contractor?
If it's your full-time role as an employee then it's time to buy that "Clearcase for Beginners" book.
If you're looking to deliver a project quickly, then perhaps just keep your head down and use Subversion as an expedient. Ask someone to check the finished article into Clearcase as you run out of the door.
:)
Use a DVCS like Mercurial or Git and make a branch of it to keep synced up with ClearCase. Your team can do the day to day work using a better tool but your organization still has your work products accessible the usual way (which is important). Sync up with ClearCase on a regular basis, and consider adding the output of your systems DVCS log (eg hg log) to a file in the ClearCase branch, so people can see the more granular steps if needed.
DVCS systems are also usually pretty easy to set up, and often can be easily hosted on a network share or something like that. Since all developers will have a copy of the full tree it provides a certain amount of built in backup and redundancy.
This workflow is not uncommon -- gitsvn and hgsvn are both scripts people have set up to let them use those tools by themselves but sync up with folks on another repository.
Problem:
A huge code base spanning to several
million SLoC,
maintained(support/active enhancements
etc) by a horde of second/third rate
programmers(most of them who do not
really care). Decades ago, few smart
guys had put in place a wrapper that
uses CVS underneath and this system is
being used by current generation of
developers (90% of them have not used
CVS directly, or heard of/used another
command line source control system).
Effect:
Usage of CVS and multiple teams
working across multiple modules,
inevitably => CVS branch merges to
trunk. This would be an activity
practised in the most religiously and
ritualistically possible way. [=>
brute force; planned weeks ahead,
involving a dozen guys for 2/4 days. Hundreds(sometimes thousands) of sources handled, manually.
Funny part is, the people involved are not the original owners of the
fix, and they simply go by checking
the diffs; really, am not kidding!]
This leads to a lot of inconsistency
in the sanity of the
libraries/modules/functionality and
too much of effort is spent to correct
defects due to regression during these
merges.
And now, the question:
What alternative source control system
can bring in some positive change and
improve the lives of
programmers/managers and everyone else
in the environment?
Since everyone around there seems to have drunk the KoolAid (and sing "This-is-how-things-are-done-everywhere") without even giving a thought about finding an alternative, it is high time someone does that. But considering the sort of people who would use the system, the following aspects are to be kept in mind.
Simple to use && understand, even Joe Coder should be able to use it without fuss. (Anyway this won't be needed, as the wrapper would hide real under-the-hood stuff from folks)
A HUGE codebase (consisting of sources across multiple languages), with multiple(around 30) active branches at any given time.
Easy merges to various branches. (considering that volume of changes is quite huge)
Commercial support for the system would be sweet, if available.
Development happens on UNIX servers (Should run on HP-UX/Solaris at least)
Should scale well (thousands of users/hundreds of thousands of sources)
Good Documentation
Simple/lucid browser based interface to compare/view changes/copies.
There are no binary files in repository, so need not bother about them.
Provision for importing current repository contents into the new system.
So, please suggest. Is there hope && a way out? :) Am pretty sure stuff like git would be rejected outright (they believe "git is only for smart folks")
EDIT: I too have Mercurial and BitKeeper in mind, and have mentioned it to folks up the chain. Hoping for the best!
Thanks! :)
You may have heard the old saying about good, fast and cheap. The same applies here. With a rich feature set come some degree of complexity. I don't believe that you can fulfill that list of requirements without picking a tool that is going to involve some complexity. I wish you luck in trying, but if it were me I would pick a good tool and invest some time into training the users.
Am pretty sure stuff like git would be rejected outright (they believe "git is only for smart folks")
If it's purely a matter of "perception" - that they "perceive" git to be too complex, try suggesting Mercurial or Bazaar - they might not be familiar enough with them to have formed an inaccurate preconception.
Mercurial would be my suggestion. To avoid the "complexity," perception, take a look at
this site.
It is "A friendly introduction to the Mercurial DVCS by Joel Spolsky," and it provides an excellent tutorial for users (and a subversion recovery portion) which takes them through step by step editing, committing, merging, etc.
I'll throw out the suggestion of moving to Subversion. It's not the sexy distributed source control that all the cool kids are using, but, and this is the reason I am suggesting it, SVN should be an easy migration from CVS. It's established, well-used, and conceptually similar to CVS in some respects. (Now, if your developers are so far removed from even that, it might not help.)
Many, many people have done this migration. There are utilities out there to migrate your code from CVS to SVN (but not without some pain).
It should address most of your requirements (though how easy merging can be is debatable).
Bottom line is: your challenge isn't the technology. It's the adoption. If your team doesn't want to change, it won't. And sadly, any solution will be doomed. You have to convince them they need a change first. The best bet is to appeal to their laziness (I mean that in a positive way) and show that "life will be better" if they change.
Any tool would need training. I would say that if you are confident that you will be moving to some other system then it makes complete sense to spend sometime on training the guys so that in the longer run it would be very helpful.
By looking at your requirement set I'd say try looking at svn or sos. Advantage of having sos is that you get 24*7 support on issues. They can handle large data. They also have a cool browser interface.
I'm a grad student in Electrical Engineering, and my lab has various projects related to ultrasonics. We have lots of code to perform simulations, but right now our situation is such that any given script has ~5 different versions. In addition, one person might develop code to simulate wave propagation, while another needs that code to perform a different simulation. This results in code being emailed back and forth quite a bit.
I suggested version control to my advisor, and she says that she likes it, but doesn't have time to manage a VCS, so it would have to be set up in such a way as to require as little maintenance as possible. Obviously, we're not releasing software to the public, so it doesn't matter if the internal structure is unconventional.
Most of the lab are not professional coders, but we all need to write MATLAB code as well as some other stuff. So, I don't expect the users to be so good about clean commits and the like, so it would be good for everyone to have their own "workplace" or something like that. But to be honest, I've only ever used version control for 3 people at once, so I'm not sure how to set this up.
So I am asking what is the best way to do this. I have only used Subversion, but I wonder if that is the right choice. We need a system that would (sorted by importance, descending):
require little maintenance
be easy to use and learn, since not everyone has used version control
have shell integration (we all use Windows XP)
be easy to set permissions and give everyone their own workspace
be easy to set up and get running
So, (1) What VCS is the best choice, and (2) how should we structure it. Thanks for the help.
We use subversion and love it, for its simplicity, easy of use, integration into the shell environment and the ability to not just version, code, but also specification documents pdf's and other resources we have.
As for structuring it, try and use your logical structure, as close as possible. Keep it simple :)
I see no reason why you should look further from Subversion. Although, for extra little maintenance you could check GitHub (since it is hosted solution, so no worrying about backup, servers etc) but there are hosted Subversion repos as well.
Especially if you're already familiar with it, so you can bring others up to speed and get extra credit :)
Once completely setup subversion should require very little maintenance, it's model is simple to apprehend, it is integrated in the shell, it supports ACLs which work just fine and it's setup is well documented.
you can setup subversion in a webserver, integrate it with a windows domain for auth if needed (otherwise you have to add/remove users, change passwords on the svn server)
You could also go the distributed vcs way, with hosted solutions no server setup, but to get that across your user's mind is gonna be way more difficult than svn. Not to mention getting it across your own head first.
Unless you have complex, fast-paced, parallel development models, I wouldn't recommend dvcs, I would stick to SVN
I agree that subversion is a very good choice.
But you can also consider mercurial: it's easier and it also has a tortoise integrated interface.
I would recommend www.assembla.com. They offer paid subscriptions but for academic projects you can apply for a free pro account.
I have used it for my academic projects and was 100% satisfied by the ease of maintenance, up-time and simplicity
The far easiest way is to use Subversion. But to get it to work the most easiest way (under Windows) you should definitely use TortoiseSVN.
After installation it works right within the explorer is just one right click away from usage. Maybe one of your guys should take a deeper look into the whole documentation to give help if needed. All other guys should take a look into the Daily Usage Guide for a first start.
Also you should take care about how you structure your repository!
Subversion has too many limitations related to the "always online + central server" model.
I would strongly recommend using a distributed version control system.
From the three main ones Git, Mercurial, Bazaar; in my experience Bazaar is by far the easiest one to use and setup.
I recently joined the IT department of a big insurance company. Although the department's title is "IT", a lot of code gets written here; Java, JSP, JavaScript, COBOL and even some C++ from what I've heard. All the programs that allow insurers, brokers and the rest of the tie-wearing, white-collar workers to issue new contracts and deal with clients runs on the code produced by this department. I've been told that the department is pretty good by the parent company's standards and that we've even received an internal award or two. We're 17 people in the department, split in smaller groups of 2 or 3. As you might've guessed from the COBOL part further up, the average age is over 40 years (as a point of reference I'm 29 yo).
Right now, there is no version control system in place (there exists a general backup scheme though). When needed, files are passed around through shared folders. Usually there's one person in every group responsible for copying the "final" version of the files back to the production server. I find this absurd and even a bit dangerous.
How may I try to convince management that we should implement a VCS scheme in our department? I've never deployed a VCS myself but every other place I've worked at had one. I think I'll hit a "we've been OK until now, why bother" wall from the first step, coupled with the age of most of my co-workers that will feel this step is an unnecessary hurdle.
I know the basic advantages of VCS (traceability, granular backups, accountability etc). I'm looking to back my case with realistic cases and examples of real added value over the implementation costs, not just a "but-but-but, we must have a VCS you fools!" :-)
You don't necessarily need their permission.
Install svn on your machine, start using it, and then start convincing your fellow team members to use it too.
Then watch and see what happens.
Edits
The basic idea of this is that it's easier to show than to tell.
It's a great idea to support your ideas with a working implementation/solution.
Of course, if you succeed, and they want the system used department/company wide, you must be prepared to support the transition, know how the software is to be installed and used.
Going ahead and using something accepted in the industry is faster than having discussions on what system should be used.
There is a good change that this will get you noticed. You may also get your peers respect and support.
As suggested, the same approach can be made on other areas:
issue/bug tracking systems
quality tools
time tracking
continuous integration
a wiki for knowledge base, HOWTO's, guidelines, tutorials, presentations, screencasts
different IDEs and tools
build tools
automated deployment
various scripts that would save your team time
.. any item that will visibly add quality to your work, but doesn't (yet) disrupt existing methodologies and practices.
Joel Spolsky has an excellent article: Getting Things Done When You're Only a Grunt
Quote
Nobody on your team wants to use
source control? Create your own CVS
repository, on your own hard drive if
necessary. Even without cooperation,
you can check your code in
independently from everybody else's.
Then when they have problems that
source control can solve (someone
accidentally types rm * ~ instead of
rm *~), they'll come to you for help.
Eventually, people will realize that
they can have their own checkouts,
too.
Management? I will put bold the expressions and words you should use:
Your should display some examples how a VCS will prevent losing money to the company if some error/bugs or disaster happens. It will be faster to solve all problems, so maintaning the systens won't be so lazy and people become more productive.
You should also mention that implementing a VCS has no costs.
VCS will also give advantages for backup all the existing code. So, all the code will be safe.
My opinion on how to go about doing this, is that you should try to convince your fellow developers first. The way I see it, there are two ways this might go about:
You give the right arguments to the other developers (possibly only the head developers will suffice), they like the idea, and the suggest it to management. Management is easy to convince at that point, so everyone is happy.
You give the right arguments to management, who get all excited (great!) and mandate that version control has to be installed and used by everyone. Here's the thing: If at this point the other developers are not sold to the idea already, then (a) they might be hostile to an idea that management is forcing upon them, and (b) they might not like you for being the cause of it all.
So what are good arguments to convince fellow developers? As someone who uses subversion (which is the one I recommend in this case, by the way) even for his solo projects, here's a few advantages I can think of:
Using version control forces people to think of code modification in terms of a series of small, self-contained changes. This is an extremely beneficial way of working: where otherwise people would be inclined to make lots of changes all over the place, leaving the code in a mess, version control kinda forces them to change the code in bite-size, easy-to-swallow bits, keeping the code compiling at all times, easing the cost of integration with other modules, etc.
Version control makes it very easy to see what has changed in the code each time. This might sound trivial, but when you start modifying code it's easy to lose track after a while. But with VC it's all an "svn diff" (or equivalent) away, always.
Version control makes it very easy to see who has changed the code each time. So that, for example, when something breaks, you know who to blame. (It's not an accident that the subversion command which shows who last changed each line is called "svn blame".)
Version control makes it very easy to see why a piece of code was changed. Commit messages, if used properly, essentially provide continual documentation of the ongoing development process. Documentation that otherwise wouldn't be written.
Version control makes it very easy to track down regressions and see where they appeared. In the easy case, you just track down commit messages and spot the culprit. In the average case, you have to consult the diffs too. In the hard case, you have to do regression testing of previous versions using what amounts to binary search, which is still better than the no-VC case, where you simply have no clue.
This list is not exhaustive, of course, but these are the main benefits that come to mind right now. Obviously, as others have already mentioned, it's easier to show all this to your colleagues than to describe it to them, and setting it up for yourself first (but importing everyone's code, mind) sounds like a great idea.
As Joel points out on one of his articles, start using your own one man version control system and market its benefit on every opportunity you get. Show them the benefits of traceability, granular backups etc from your single instance. People will start realizing its benefits irrespective of their age.
I agree with the answer that are referring to the Joel Guerrilla article.
Install/Use some thing with a low overhead. Hg (Mercurial) is easy in a mixed eniroment and is good because you can bail out and use something else in an easy way.
You must share your things without making a fuzz about it. When someone needs your code, export it and use the "standard" corporate method (shared folder or whatever)
When you get code, always import it into a repos, if you think it is a new commit of a repos you already have, try to get it into that one.
Sooner or later you will have a code for several project and hopefully some commits on some repos. Then you can expose those with the mercurials webserver interface (hg serve -p XXXX).
When the times comes when someone don't know why something suddenly don't works as it should be and is trying to figure out why becase it was working last monday ... and you know that you have that code in a repos step up and ask if you can be of any assistance. Get the falty code, commit it into your repos and expose with hg serve. Look at it in the browser.
My point is that you must prove with real cases to your colleges that this stuff has a value.
If the haven't figured it out by themselves after some many years you have a mountain to climb but it can be done. You must be patience though. It could very well take a year to convert one man (old dog). If you have any younger coworkers try to do this together, the more code you can get hold on the better.
I would point out the hazards of not having one - lost code, developers over writing each other changes, ability to rollback problems, etc.
Also since Subversion and some others are free, point out there is no real cost to purchase, jsut the time to implement.
The biggest issue you will have as the new guy is that you will be seen as rockign the boat, if they had no issues to date they will be hard to convince. Perhaps start using it locally jsut for yourself and maybe they will like what they see and start to adopt it.
I would try small steps, maybe ask the others if they ever used one, point out the benefits, when an issue arises that a system would have prevented or aided in point it out delicately.
From a purely business perspective, and depending on the size and nature of your parent company an IT auditor may consider your lack of a VCS a finding (i.e. something that needs fixing). I believe you could improve your pitch to management by telling them that any CVS is a great way of showing that your department respects its resources and works in a structured way and efficient way, something auditors always like to see.
I don't know how your corporate culture works but I'd be careful about rolling out your own CVS since if it does see use it suddenly becomes your responsibility when things go wrong, even if you were not at fault. To cover your ass (and keep the aforementioned auditors even happier) I'd roll the system out with a full set of written procedures for its use and maintenance.
Finally while I myself am a big fan of initiative at any level of the enterprise don't expect people to remember to say thanks when they figure out how great it is. Some might, but for the most part you're doing this to make your own life easier and for your own karma.
Remember, there are plenty of version control systems that are absolutely free. And the amount of time spent installing and maintaining a version control system should be somewhere near 0 (they shouldn't require any maintenance). There isn't even a space penalty for most systems, as they can compress things internally.
You have listed some advantages, and there are others. But more importantly, I can't think of a single disadvantage.
I would also recommend starting with implementing VCS (Version Control System) for yourself first. I'd recommend using one of distributed VCS (Git, Mercurial, Bazaar) rather than centralized Subversion, because it would be easier to create central repository (or repositories) by cloning than moving your Subversion repository to central place. Distributed SCM can be also used in a smaller group to exchange ideas.
A few advantages of (modern) version control systems:
You can always revert (go back) to last working version of your code (provided that you follow some sane version control conventions, like at least tagging only tested code). With code shared via folders it might turn out that no one version works, backup copies were deleted to save space, and recovering code from backup is tedious / was never tested.
You can switch between working on some new feature (some experimental work), and working on urgent fix in currently deployed version (maintenace work) thanks to branches (and stash / shelve for uncommitted work).
If you follow good practices for version control (small and often commits, changes being about one single thing, writing good commit message describing change and whys of change) you would have much, much easier finding bugs, be it by bisecting history to find which change introduced bug, or by using version control system to look up who was responsible for given area of code (annotate / blame).
Start talking to the other developers about problems thay have had in the past as a way to get to know the system and how it evolved (sneaky, sneaky, sneaky, but hey this information will probably come in handy at some poitn even aside from the version control issue). You are bound to sooner or later find some wonderful examples of things that have already happened which would have been far less painful if you had version control. Use these examples when you present the idea to management.
I agree with the idea that you can probably start using your own version control and eventually will be able to help thm out of a fix, but I'd bet money they have been in some of those fixes already and if they already remember how painful the problme was before, it will help sell the new idea.
Look for another job.
Seriously.
There are way better jobs out there that don't require you to teach the existing staff.
Ones where you could go into work and just, y'know, work.
Also, keep in mind that 30 isn't far off. That's the age at which most people
stop suffering fools gladly.
Just a heads up.
EDIT
It's been suggested that quitting a bad job is for quitters.
Maybe so, but keep in mind that you're supposed to
put your employer to the Joel test before you accept the job, not after.
What would be the best version control system to learn as a beginner to source control?
Anything but Visual Source Safe; preferably one which supports the concepts of branching and merging. As others have said, Subversion is a great choice, especially with the TortoiseSVN client.
Be sure to check out (pardon the pun) Eric Sink's classic series of Source Control HOWTO articles.
I'd suggest you try Subversion, for example with the 1-click SVN installer. Try searching SO for "Subversion", and you'll find loads of questions with answers that point to good tutorials.
Good luck!
I'd go straight for Git. I've used subversion before, but always felt like I was doing it wrong. Git made sense from day one.
Useful resources:
Linus Torvals on Git
Scott Chacon "Getting Git"
There are a few core concepts that I think are important to learn:
Check-ins/check-outs (obviously)
Local versions vs. server versions
Mapping/Binding a local workspace to a remote store or repository.
Merging your changes back into a file that contains changes from
others.
Branching (what it is, when/why to use it)
Merging changes from a branch back into a main branch or trunk.
Most modern source control systems require some knowledge of the above topics and should help facilitate you learning them. Then you have distributed source control, which I don't have any experience with but is supposed to be fairly complicated and may not be suitable for a beginner.
Subversion is great because it has all of the modern features you'd want and is free.
Git is also becoming an increasingly popular option and is another free or very low cost alternative to Subversion. Knowledge regarding the concepts of branching and merging become critical for using Git, however.
You can use unfuddle as a free and easy way to experiment with both Git and Subversion. I use it to host a couple of subversion repositories for some side projects I've worked on in the past.
I'm not and advanced source control user, but I'm learning. Here is my experience with source control products:
A long time ago, the company I was working for at the time decided to use source control. They introduced the concept to developers and got eveyone willing to give it a try. They chose to use PVCS, and implemented it. Before too long, developers would have to coordinate to lock/unlock modules and objects and we really didn't see much benefit.
A few years later, I was playing around with making an open source project and at the time rubyforge was offering CVS repositories. I tried it out and it was marginally better than PVCS. Granted I was the only one using the repository. I did however become frustrated when I tried to rearrange the structure of my files because I didn't like the way I had initially imported them. It didn't really work out in CVS.
A few years after that I was working on another personal project and my web hosting provider offered easy to setup Subversion (SVN) repositories. It took me a little bit of research to get it up and running correctly, but once I got past the initial learning curve, I liked it.
Not long after that I realized that I liked having source control and that my current job didn't have it. So I evangelized, and after a long period of time, my team implemented Source Safe because we work in Visual Studio and are generally a Microsoft shop. I was eager to use it, but before long I found that I was losing files and that Visual Studio was putting things in the wrong place and that I'd work on a project for a while and then go to export my work to another location and find that it either wouldn't export or would only export some of the projects in a solution. This made me realize that even though I thought I was using a "version control system", the copy of the code that was most secure, robust and complete was my working copy. The exact opposite of what source control is supposed to do.
So last week I was so fed up with Source Safe that I went searching. After looking into a few solutions, I decided to try git. I won't say it's all been roses, since I have again had some learning curve to get it to do what I want it to do, However, I have liked it enough to convert all of my work and personal projects over to it. One of the really nice things about it is that I don't need a centralized repository so I can use it without going through a ton of red tape at work to get it installed.
So in short I would reccommend git, I use Mysysgit in windows and it has the added bonus of giving me a bash shell. On Linux you can just install it from your package manager. If you don't like git, try subversion. If you don't like either of those you probably won't like CVS or PVCS either. Under no circumstances try Source Safe, it's awful.
I found http://unfuddle.com saved me messing about with installing SVN or git. You can get a free account in there and use either of those - plus you can use your OpenID there.
Then you avoid having to mess about setting it up right and focus on how you're going to use it!
Vault from SourceGear.com is superb. It is free for single users and provides a superb VS 2005/2008 interface. I love it!
rp
#Ian Nelson:
I agree with you that Source Safe is bad as a source control system, but keep in mind that using Source Safe is a lot better than "carrying around floppy disks" as Joel Spolsky said.
For a beginner it might not be a bad idea, since the cost of having no source control at all is a lot higher.
Each tool has it's strengths and weaknesses. It's very much a question of what your requirements are. Unfortunately with this issue, like many others, it's often not the best tool that is selected but the one that someone is familiar with. For instance, if you don't require many branches and your team is small and local, almost any vcs will do the job (except SourceSafe). Things change if you need branches (which almost by necessity means you also need to do merges), your team is distributed, you need advanced security (subcontractors are not allowed to entire source tree), task tracking, etc. There is also the question of cost in three different ways: cost of licenses, cost of maintenance (some tools are so complicated that you in practice need someone just to control the repositories) and cost of training.
Therefore suggesting one tool over another is like suggesting what would be the best programming language.
Just some pointers:
StarTeam is the easiest of the tools
I have used. It required very little
training. I got a one-day training
since I was to be the maintainer.
This maintaining took me less than 30
minutes per week. Users I "trained"
by writing a two-page manual and
after that I had very few questions
to answer.
Continuus was the other end of the
scale as far as ease of use is
concerned. On the other hand task handling was great and it offered good support for release management. Trouble is, even as a release manager I never thought ease of making releases (it was once you learned how, but that took a considerable amount of time) should be more important than the daily work that developers do.
Merging and branch creating differs
wildly between tools. Some tools make
this simple, like git and ClearCase
(although the latter is very slow)
some basically force you to do the
merge by hand. If you need to do
merges a lot, the cost can get high.
ClearCase was also expensive in all
three categories mentioned before
(although it has to be said we used
all the advanced stuff which isn't
necessary). Git on the other hand
lacks a good UI and some of concepts
differ from what you might be used
to. Git's security features are also
lacking (gitosis addresses some
issues but not all).
Most tools I have used are also quite
slow. Tools like PVCS/Dimensions was
just slow, no matter what (basic
things like opening a directory in
the repository), some very slow in
more specific ways (like ClearCase).
From the tools I have used I would select StarTeam if your developers are not very experienced (and if you don't mind paying the license, which is quite expensive) and git if you have some experienced vcs guys onboard who can set up the environment to other guys. Mercurial also looks like an interesting competitor and seems to have slightly better UI's.
Continuus, PVCS/Dimensions and ClearCase are just too slow, too complex and too expensive for almost any project. If someone insist on selecting one of these, I would go for ClearCase.
I haven't used Subversion which many seem to like (yet, I have a feeling this is about to change in the near future) so can't comment how it compares to the other tools I have used (usually as a build and/or release manager).
As for the first tool to choose, problem with Git, Bazaar and Mercurial is they are distributed vcs's. This is different from the traditional server-client model where you have a central repository. For just learning the stuff I would recommend also reading about the concepts. Branching for instance is something that you might not understand correctly just by trying yourself (there are different branch strategies for different situations). Plus it is very different if you are the only one accessing the repository, merge conflicts for instance wouldn't be a problem (you might get to see them but you would easily also fix them since you know the code in both branches). Of course you would learn about check outs, check ins, and such but I don't think these issues are particularily difficult in the first place.
Added problem with vcs's is that they tend to use different terms. In StarTeam which is otherwise easy to use they for some reason insist on using the terms "check out" and "check out and lock". The latter is what most people think the first does. There is a reason for this (you can edit files even if you don't have an exclusive lock), but it would still make much more sense to call these "Get" and "Check out" to avoid confusion.
Anything, but I would learn a modern system like git or subversion myself. My first VCS was RCS, but I got the basics down.
Well, if you are just wanting to learn on your own, I would say you should go with something free, like subversion. If you are a company who has never used source control before, then it really depends on your needs.
My first exposure was CVS with WinCVS as a client. it was horrid. Next was Subversion, with TortoiseSVN and Eclipse's integration. It was intuitive, and heavenly. I think that using CVS with TortoiseCVS and Eclipse's would be nice as well, though I prefer the way SVN handles revisioning. The entire repository is versioned with each check in, not individual files.
I'd also recommend Subversion. It does not take too long to set up, it is free, and there is a really good book available online that goes over the basics as well as some advanced topics: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
Subversion with tortoisesvn. (tortoisesvn because you can see a lot of what goes on visually and will provide a good jumping off point for the command line stuff. ) There is tons of documentation out there and most likely you will see it at least one point in your career. Almost every company I have worked for and interviewed with runs SVN.
If you're looking to learn a commercial product while getting started Perforce provides a free client and server, with the server supporting two users and five client workspaces.
At my previous place of employment it was used religiously not only for code by our programmers, but for art assets and game levels, and my own documentation.
Subversion is good place to start with. It is very stable and modern version control system.
Best online resource to start learning about Subversion would be Version Control with Subversion. There are lot of choices as far as server and client softwares are concerned. I personally prefer (for Windows environment).
VisualSVN server
TortoiseSVN shell-integrated client and
AnkhSVN Visual Studio Subversion Add-On
Again, with Subversion there are lot of options available. Also, it is a continually evolving version control system (unlike outdated SourceSafe). It could be easily integrated with numerous automated build tools (CruiseControl, FinalBuilder) and bug/issue tracking systems (JIRA).
If you are looking for state-of-the-art version control systems, go for Git(developed by Linus Torvalds). But if you are totally new to version control systems, I would suggest start with subversion.