Your version control software of choice is

Submitted by maxk on Tue 22 Jan 2013

 

Centralized  <-> 31%535 votes
Distributed  <-> 66%1130 votes
Total 1699 votes

Posted by Steve (90.193.xx.xx) on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 21:22
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]

Although in practice I still have a master location I push to, and it is operated in a centralized fashion!

Steve

[ Parent ]

Posted by rjc (131.111.xx.xx) on Wed 23 Jan 2013 at 08:59
[ Send Message ]
Me too - master repo with push/pull, but it CAN become distributed any time ;^)

rjc

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (94.198.xx.xx) on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 11:03
CVS❣

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (94.198.xx.xx) on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 11:04
Uhm guys, that was *one* UTF-8 character. It's not *that* hard to fix UTF-8 working...

[ Parent ]

Posted by adrianmay (220.136.xx.xx) on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 10:11
[ Send Message ]
Maybe it is. You put

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

on the top line.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (193.1.xx.xx) on Tue 30 Apr 2013 at 16:25
I thought it was a joke about CVS binary handling...

[ Parent ]

Posted by xrat (213.47.xx.xx) on Sun 17 Nov 2013 at 10:36
[ Send Message ]
LOL but no, it was a joke about Perl's Unicode handling ;-)

[ Parent ]

Posted by adrianmay (220.136.xx.xx) on Fri 29 Mar 2013 at 10:04
[ Send Message ]
My two penn'orth: distributed version control is a *contradiction in terms*. The whole point of source control is to create a single definition of what you've got and put it under the control of whoever's paying for it. What's more, everybody who's using git or the like is using it in a centralised way, but paying the price of not using a system that was designed to be used that way. Like clients having to pull the entire history when all they want is to build it, the insane policy of telling coders to rewrite history, and needing things like Android's repo scripts to do what the distributed version control system considers old fashioned. I honestly don't understand how the first beer mat that idea was scribbled on made it home from the pub. For me the only candidates are Perforce and Clearcase. It's a shame that no GPL SW can keep up with either of those, but I blame that fact on the outbreak of this distributed madness and peoples' tendency to run with the herd.

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (97.78.xx.xx) on Wed 17 Apr 2013 at 16:12
question was about version control not source control

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (69.5.xx.xx) on Mon 29 Apr 2013 at 15:04
"Distributed" doesn't mean you don't have a central repo. It simply means that any node holds a copy of the code. With a centralized system, you never keep a local copy of your repo: you simply have a copy of you code, which means, when offline, you don't have version control. A distributed system is a peer-to-peer system: every node holds a full copy of the repo, with full commit ability/history, and any node can become the "master", if so desired.

So, distributed vs centralized is different from "with a master repo vs no central/master repo"... :)

[ Parent ]

Posted by AnjaniaCatus (192.168.xx.xx) on Thu 11 Jul 2013 at 09:14
[ Send Message ]
Hello , Git is a nice example for distributed version control software ;)

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (89.108.xx.xx) on Fri 27 Sep 2013 at 19:25
Try fossil
fossil-scm.org

[ Parent ]

Posted by AJxn (212.110.xx.xx) on Wed 20 Nov 2013 at 16:03
[ Send Message | View Weblogs ]

I use git-annex. Do that count? ;-)

(I have used SCCS, RCS, CVS, SVN and GIT. Now I uses SVN or GIT, depending on circumstances)

[ Parent ]

Posted by Anonymous (207.239.xx.xx) on Mon 25 Nov 2013 at 22:07
Team Foundation Service 2012
OK, it wasn't my choice. They made me install it.
Version control, source repository, build, and deploy in one ginormus mess!

[ Parent ]