Which revision control system do you use the most?

Submitted by Steve on Wed 31 Oct 2012

 

git  <-> 53%523 votes
mercurial  <-> 7%72 votes
bzr  <-> 1%12 votes
darcs  <-> 0%7 votes
subversion  <-> 24%240 votes
cvs  <-> 2%28 votes
huh?  <-> 9%97 votes
Total 986 votes

Posted by maxk (85.64.xx.xx) on Fri 9 Nov 2012 at 17:54
[ Send Message | View Weblogs ]
Look at the excellent PR Mr. Linus Torvalds did to git :)
I am using mostly hg. For several resources, git is the only option, but I'm not using it much.
It is a bit faster than hg, but I like its terminology, used to it. and it's improved in performance thanks to git so much I don't really feel the difference in the speed.

What really amazes me is the amount of CVS users :)
( I know Steve is among them :) :) :) )

[ Parent ]

Posted by Steve (90.220.xx.xx) on Wed 21 Nov 2012 at 08:43
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]

I used to be a heavy CVS user, but now I'm cured! These days I use Mercurial by default for all projects I work on at home & work.

If I'm interacting with a project which uses git/mercurial/darcs/whatever I can get by, making changes and submitting patches, but I default to hg.

Steve

[ Parent ]

Posted by ajt (89.240.xx.xx) on Mon 12 Nov 2012 at 22:21
[ Send Message | View Weblogs ]

I use CVS at work because the server is so ancient that I've not got round to migrating it to anything else. At home I use subversion and there is only me using it, and only for small Perl projects so it's fine. Everyone says that git is the reproductive organs of a male Canis lupus familiaris but I've just not got round to trying it out - so I can't comment!

--
"It's Not Magic, It's Work"
Adam

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (213.196.xx.xx) on Tue 13 Nov 2012 at 20:05
Why is Microsofts TFS missing?

[ Parent ]

Posted by Steve (90.220.xx.xx) on Wed 21 Nov 2012 at 08:44
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]

Probably for the same reason Visual Source Safe is missing!

(Doesn't run on Debian.)

Steve

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (201.22.xx.xx) on Fri 16 Nov 2012 at 14:41
That many people still uses Subversion and a few still uses CVS strikes me as a little awkward. Don't we know better our technological pathways?

My gripe with those pre-distributed version control systems is that besides not be distributed, they do an awful bad job at merging, to the point of people just avoiding doing branches...

[ Parent ]

Posted by linulin (188.168.xx.xx) on Fri 16 Nov 2012 at 19:34
[ Send Message ]

My gripe with those pre-distributed version control systems is that besides not be distributed, they do an awful bad job at merging, to the point of people just avoiding doing branches...

Although such statements could be seen often, I find them to be untrue. I used branching and merging under CVS and Subversion a lot. And CVS was not much harder than Subversion and Git. You just need to understand the mechanics of merge process, and follow well-established practices.

The only real problems usually appear because of conflicting changes in different branches. And such conflicts are going to cause equal trouble with any VCS.

Distributed or centralized VCS nature is irrelevant to branching and merging, except for performance. Centralized setups (especially if they are poorly managed and use inadequate hardware) may be really slow at times.

--
...Bye..Dmitry.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (79.249.xx.xx) on Tue 4 Dec 2012 at 22:08
I use git for all 'real' version control and consider SVN being crap. But there's one use case i still prefer CVS - my pictures and music libraries. Data is never merged there and CVS has the big advantage here -and only in this case- that it doesn't double the needed disk space in the checkout folder.

[ Parent ]