We've chosen our version control system at work. We're migrating everything off CVS and SourceSafe into AccuRev.
I'll talk more about it when I start using it, but it seems to solve all the usual CVS complaints (broken merging, not versioning metadata, etc) plus is nicely cross platform and easy to use. And it seems to be based on a solid theory of version control, which is nice to see.
Re:version control systems
cbrandtbuffalo on 2004-02-01T20:12:07
Just read your most recent post. We have the same issue with non-developers not understanding the importance of version control with documents. The Perforce product has an MS Office plug-in which should allow non-developers to easily check documents in and out from within MS Office. We're waiting for a demo to see this in action, because this is one of the reasons we like it.
But Perforce is not free.Re:version control systems
Adrian on 2004-02-01T22:44:14
There a feature comparison of several different systems you might find useful.
I'm a subversion fan myself. Hits the sweet spot for me, and if I ever need non-centralised repositories there's svk.
Re:version control systems
Matts on 2004-02-01T23:34:28
We did evaluate perforce. It was deemed too complex (hard to install and use, especially on Windows), and did not solve the complex merge problem very well. It's GUI also left much to be desired, compared to AccuRevs.
YMMV of course, and I know there are lots of Perforce fanboys in the perl world, so I hope I'm not offending anyone.
Just curious what it cost you. The web site looks interesting, and I'm tempted to download the trial version, but I'm wondering if I'm going to fall in love with something I can't afford.
Like taking a Ferrari for a test drive.
Re:Cost?
Matts on 2004-03-03T13:59:17
It's in the same ballpark as Perforce, IIRC (around $1000 per seat?)
