Slashdot Mirror
Designing a New Version Control System?
tekvov asks: "When Linus Torvalds decided to use BitKeeper as the version control system for Linux there seemed to be a lot of controversy and many challenges to create a better system than CVS. My question is exactly what would this 'better system' look like? How is the subversion project, Tigris, doing at creating a new version control system? Basically, does the Open Source Community need new tools in this aspect of development? And if so, how should these new tools look?"
Obviously these new tools should have little functionality masked by really fancy GUI. At least, that's what I've been trained to like.
Shouldn't we just use whatever source control system the CVS developers use?
I am a Karma Library.
Now it's just a matter of some GNU programmers coming out with a knock-off version that's not as good, but good enough. First, though, we need to come up with a name. It has to be a clever twist on BitKeeper.
I nominate:
'ByteLoser'
Who wants to slap up the SourceFarce page and start working on the icon?
I think the practice of moderating posts to -1, troll is just not effective any more! Most people read at -1 anyway. Time for a new system?
13. allows version numbers larger than 1. I'm tired of all open source being with version numbers like 0.997
There are much better solutions than version control systems:
1) Don't have version control. Just have one single developer working on everything. Since humans are largely single-threaded, you have no locking to worry about.
2) Don't write software. If you're careful you can usually get away with mucking about on the web or playing nwn with the sound turned down in all but the smallest offices. You needn't worry about version control at all.
3) Seperate the development out properly so developers don't tread on each others feet. For example, get one programmer to always write the bottom 15% of each c++ program, and another to write the rest. The one only doing 15% of the c++ would then have enough spare time to do all the fortran77 bits.
That's all I can think of. I'm going home now, my head hurts.
I tested it by putting the code under version control, but then I discovered a bug...
I've never seen my code since...
Verizon control? That's a great idea! We should enforce regulations as to how many annoying commercials they are allowed to air in one day!
Can you hear me now? Good...
dmarien
Look, Windows is king.
Yes, King.
I would not hesitate to say that it has it's share of difficulties, but there is no way anything is going to replace it anytime soon. There are many meta-features of Windows that make it unable to be replaced:
1. Massive Acceptance: Windows is everywhere. 50 million people use it every day. Another few million elsewhere. It is the common thread that pulls us apart (kinda like the government!)
2. Massive, Massive Application support: This is my favorite. You can use it about a hundred different ways. Not 1 gui, but 500000!. It doesn't have command line apps, like great!. Show me another OS that has integration with the windows explorer like it has. You Can't. (Don't even try that god-awful WINE's integration:yuk!)
3. SimplicityIt's REALLY simple to use. It's not that complicated. If Windows throws you for a loop, maybe anything involving computers really isn't where you should be working. The incompetence among users is what makes all software look bad.
4. Protocols: You can run Windows with SSH, RSH, SMB, File Access, and more... It fits into every environment. It works across any damn network. It can jump tall buildings in a single bound!
Really, until someone makes something that trounces Windows in all those areas, AND provides features that "I can't live without" Windows will Rule.
This is NOT a troll. 100,000 lemmings CAN be wrong.
i-name =twylite [http://public.xdi.org/=twylite], see idcommons.net
Can you back this up? I'm interested to see.
I have to admit I'm biased to CVS. I love it so much that I used to sleep with a floppy containing the binary under my pillow for a month. (ok slight exageration).
Anyway I see a big breach in the "open source" way of doing things. In the past a simple project would grow as needed. If features didn't exists or bugs were around. Someone would fix it.
CVS has been the de facto standard for version control in the "open source" community especially in say SourceForge. Now it's being abandoned like a poor basterd child. I would like to see just why a proven software that in many ways is one of the best, known to out beat VSS the lord and ruler (MicroSoft), is now now a heap of garbage not worthy of the "open source" way of collaborative enhanchments.
Instead of throwing it away reuse it. If RCS isn't possible rewrite it. Convert CVS to a new and better way. But why destroy the one faithfull servent because it's old or doesn't live up to expectstions. We're smart people. If Linux had the same problem would we abandon it at a whim? No, I'd like to belive we would make it better. Did the GIMP give up when they were faced with a crappy Windows ToolKit?
It sounds as if it is a tempermental thing that many people are assamed of the CVS name. I, who belives in CVS and sometimes worships CVS; who in my many years of administration have never seen a problem can't fathom why it would be so ridiculed and persicuted in a world that pride themselves on co-operation and "freedom" to enhance and superiorize software at will. A huge efort to give CVS up is underway and no effort to bring CVS to the top of the ladder. It seems counter productive and contrary to what "free software" or "open source" ideals used to be.
> SELECT * FROM brain_cells WHERE synaptic_rate > 0
0 row returned
Weird. Maybe you ought to get a name?