Git will generally have a steeper learning curve than SVN, Mercurial, and Bazaar, but packs some incredible power under the hood that may make it worth the effort. All four of the version control systems we have reviewed are available for free under some version of an open source license, making cost — happily — one of the lesser concerns when choosing between these four solid software packages.
Which version control system does your team currently use, and why did you choose that VCS? We are always glad to hear your thoughts and comments. Join us on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, or drop us an email if you would like to hear more about version control or discuss the web development expertise that WebiNerds has to offer!
Right now, as you read, thousands of people are typing search engine queries. Will they land on your website? The mere existence of a website is not going to generate leads. It should be searchable, …. Will they land on your websi …. Every time you start working on a web development project with a new contractor you have to choose a pricing model.
A pricing model a matter of great importance. The method that you go with will define the nature of the future relationship. The two most common pricing models that …. The method that you …. Phone or Email. By Russell Snyder Oct 16, What is the purpose of Version Control Systems? What differs between different version control systems?
Eric Raymond suggests that version control systems can be categorized according to the following three criteria: Repository location, which can be either centralized or decentralized distributed.
The methods of checking out, merging, and committing code can be either locking merge-before-commit or commit-before-merge. To be sure, re-read Linus's original vision for Git back in April If you do agree with it, chances are Git will deliver what you want.
In short:. That "all project" notion is actually a strength and a limit for Git in term of project management: you should not seek to put everything into one Git repository. I use Bazaar and find it extremely easy. The staging area concept in Git gives some nice flexibility but it also adds complexity. Usually Bazaar seems to do the right thing. I've never really had a problem with it doing something stupid or letting me do something stupid.
I think it depends on your personal taste - there are arguments for both of them. I have used bzr extensively for personal projects for a couple of years, since the 0. I am too lazy to rewrite my own impression , but to sum it up:. Bazaar's development has stopped. The last release is 2. There have been less than 20 commits since then as of April If you're starting with version control, you should consider one that is active most likely this will be Git or Mercurial.
Edit 1: a 2. Edit 2: there's now a fork of bazaar called Breezy with more activity than Bazaar. I doubt this will become a really active project, but at least this means the tool is maintained it should survive the end of Python 2 for example, one of the goals of Breezy being to port to Python 3. Bazaar is very well integrated with ubuntu, I have been using ubuntu for many years now, tired to switch to other more geeky distro, but no point.
In addition you get free hosting from Launchpad which is a huge plus. The one thing that Git does much, much better is handling lots of branches. It does it much faster than bzr, and doesn't require multiple copies of the source code. All branches are inside the same directory.
I find myself using git branches much more often than I used to do with bzr, specially because my repo is not small and also involves binary files total MB. Thanks, FryGuy. Oh, and I found this blog entry which has useful information. One of the amazing things about Git is that because of its distributed nature and super branching system, you can easily implement pretty much any workflow you can think of relatively easily.
A very common Git workflow, especially from people transitioning from a centralized system, is a centralized workflow. Git will not allow you to push if someone has pushed since the last time you fetched, so a centralized model where all developers push to the same server works just fine. Another common Git workflow is where there is an integration manager—a single person who commits to the 'blessed' repository, and then a number of developers who clone from that repository, push to their own independent repositories and ask the integrator to pull in their changes.
This is the type of development model you often see with open source or GitHub repositories. For more massive projects, you can setup your developers similar to the way the Linux kernel is run, where people are in charge of a specific subsystem of the project 'lieutenants' and merge in all changes that have to do with that subsystem.
Again, Git is entirely flexible about this, so you can mix and match and choose the workflow that is right for you. I may be biased here, given that I work for GitHub, but I added this section anyway because so many people say that GitHub itself was specifically why they chose Git. GitHub is a reason to use Git for many people because it is more like a social network for code than a simple hosting site.
People find other developers or projects that are similar to the things they are doing, and can easily fork and contribute, creating a very vibrant community around Git and the projects that people use it for. There exist other services, both for Git and for the other SCMs, but few are user-oriented or socially targeted, and none have anywhere near the user-base.
This social aspect of GitHub is killer, and this in combination of the above features make working with Git and GitHub a great combination for rapidly developing open source projects.
This did not used to be true—early in Git's life, it was not really an SCM so much as a bunch of tools that let you do versioned filesystem work in a distributed manner. However, today, the command set and learning curve of Git are pretty similar to any other SCM, and even better than some. Since this is difficult to prove objectively without some sort of study, I'll just show the difference between the default 'help' menu for the Mercurial and Git commands.
I've highlighted the commands that are identical or nearly between the two systems. In Hg, if you type 'hg help', you get a list of some commands. Tags: bzr , git , hg , perforce , svn Submitted by Bishop Public material. However, more thorough testing on repositories with long history is needed to confirm storage efficiency.
There are some indications that Git is more efficient in repositories with long history see example. Git repositories can be packed very efficiently with clever tweaking.
Subsequent revisions added to Git repository will cause the repository to grow, but recent Git releases will repack the repository regularly and automatically. As revisions are named using their SHA, it's next to impossible to attack a Git repository. This doesn't mean that Bazaar is less secure — the integrity of each revision is still validated using SHAs in Bazaar.
A detailed look at the UI of Bazaar vs Git Directories are branches, not branch containers A key difference between Bazaar and Git is that branches are directories in Bazaar while they are internal names within a repository in Git.
In general, this simplifies the UI a fair bit. Further, the whole of release 3. This plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face approach is the hallmark of Perforce's branching model. On the other hand, it's true than many Git users like its approach and it does have benefits worth noting: the one working tree can be used for multiple branches saving disk space certain tasks like pulling and pushing a set of branches at the one time are easier.
Bazaar has solutions to both of these issues although they aren't necessarily well advertised. To use the one working tree for multiple branches, set up a shared repository with the --no-trees option together with a lightweight checkout See GitStyleBranches. The switch command within the bzrtools plugin before bzr v1. To pull a set of branches at once, use the multi-pull command within bzrtools.
There is currently no easy way to push a set of related branches in Bazaar - use the repo-push plug-in instead. Within a branch, changes directly made are emphasized over changes from a merge Technically, a branch is a directed acyclic graph DAG in Bazaar just like it is in Git. Practically though, a particular series of revisions is most important from the perspective of the owner of each branch.
Treating the left-hand side of the DAG mainline as special doesn't make Bazaar less distributed as some people have suggested. Instead, it recognizes that each branch has it's own viewpoint onto the DAG. Bazaar's UI has been designed to reflect this. Revisions on the mainline are numbered using simple numbers starting at 1. Revisions within merged branches are given dotted revision numbers, e. It explicitly doesn't do this because that approach makes it difficult to use external revision stores as bzr-svn does and to evolve storage formats over time.
Consistency In Bazaar, push and pull both enforce that the target is an ancestor of the source making the operations symmetric as expected given their command names. In Git, this is enforced for push but not for pull. Pull is more magical and may: work as it does in Bazaar do a merge and implicitly commit if there are no conflicts do a merge and make the user resolve conflicts and do the commit.
There are 3 design problems with this: it's inconsistent with how push works it ought to fail by default when using pull for updating a tracking branch a. Another common example is the user experience of using bzr-svn: users just use the normal bzr commands and things pretty much work as expected. In contrast, git-svn introduces a different set of commands because Git's architecture doesn't permit transparent support of foreign repositories.
No VCS can guarantee that a successful textual merge doesn't introduce bugs. For example, one branch may delete a function while another branch adds a client for that function. Developers and teams that are serious about making sure trunk quality is sacred ought to be running tests before every commit using a tool like PQM.
Some examples: commit without -a doesn't take the latest copy of a file but the copy as of the last add no update command revision numbers are SHA strings, not numbers. Wiki Tools wiki. Search Bazaar.
0コメント