argumentative? silky? GTFO! Most of my experience with DVCS has been with mercurial (hg) which I've used for about the last 2 years for my personal stuff. Before that I used SVN. I think the difference (from my point of view) is that hg works well in a super-set of configurations to TFS/SVN. If you were a solo developer with TFS installed locally then hg probably wouldn't be that much better (it certainly handles branching, merging and backing up more cleanly than TFS/SVN). But most people don't work that way - the server is remote. If you want to look at the 'history' for a file or do a diff it's a network operation. Checking out is a network operation (at least for TFS it is...not sure about SVN). In the case of TFS 2008 when the server was off-line work ground to a halt. With hg sometimes there _is_ no central server. I've had good experiences collaborating with other devs using hg with no central server set up, just sending patches back and forth for synchronization. You can set up your development processes such that your DVCS is fairly centralized (like things would be with TFS/SVN) - devs commit and push/pull often. Then you just get the perf wins of local disk I/O vs. network I/O and better merging capabilities.
High-level summary (from my POV) - DVCS well in a super-set of configurations to old skool SVN/TFS/CVS Joseph On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:28 AM, silky <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Joseph Cooney <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I've used TFS on and off since about 2006 (mostly because I was working > at > > MS, as they are fond of TFS), but haven't used TFS 2010. It's biggest > > strength IMO is integration - requirements, work items, bugs, builds, > source > > code and project documentation all from within Visual Studio. It's > biggest > > weakness is that it's not a distributed version control system (git, > > mercurial). > > Without sounding too argumentative; exactly why should I care that > version control is "distributed"? > > The stated arguments seem to be that you don't need to be online to do > commits, or that there is a local history, or some other such things. > I really just don't ever find the need for anything like that; am I > doing something significantly different to everyone else? > > I mean, I've glanced over this: > > http://betterexplained.com/articles/intro-to-distributed-version-control-illustrated/ > and it seems none of the benefits are really appropriate in a > 'typical' environment. > > I guess what I'm asking is - is anyone, working in an office or alone, > getting specific benefits from git or whatever, that come *purely* > from it being significantly different from SVN, and exactly what are > they? > > > > If you're just going to use it as a revision control system > > you're missing out on 80-90% of what TFS has to offer (and thus it might > not > > be worth it). TFS 2010 is a major update to the product (v2 really, since > > 2008 was really a v1.1) so I'm doubtless overlooking some cool features > > there 'cause I haven't used it. > > Joseph > > > > w: http://jcooney.net > > t: @josephcooney > > -- > silky > > http://dnoondt.wordpress.com/ > > "Every morning when I wake up, I experience an exquisite joy — the joy > of being this signature." > -- w: http://jcooney.net t: @josephcooney
