Yeah, tfs integration is very good. There is a dvcs that has integrated bug, work item tracking and wiki (called fossil) from the makers of sqlite. I haven't used it, but it will be interesting to see how long tfs retains this advantage.
On 06/11/2010, at 6:01 PM, David Kean <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d be surprised if it’s as large as DevDiv – it’s not the Framework that is > huge, it’s the largest product (in code size) that we make; VS. ;) > > > > I suspect a GB wouldn’t be bad, I easily pull down over 10 GB in my > enlistments from TFS, so assumingly a DVCS could easily handle that, only > with faster commits and history. > > > > However, if you want the integration – TFS is definitely the way to go > (however, I am biased J). > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Joseph Cooney > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:30 PM > To: ozDotNet > Cc: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: Why DVCS, was Re: TFS Feedaback? Anyone moved away from it? > > > > There is a mercurial vide from 2006 where they say some folks have gb-sized > source trees. Mono use Git - which would be roughly the same size as a devdiv > branch (an assumption based on the fact that they deliver equivalent > functionality using the same language, unless you folk store VMs or something > else big in your source tree that they don't). Linux kernel uses git, but > they are well under a gb, as is Mozilla with hg. > > > On 06/11/2010, at 4:32 AM, David Kean <[email protected]> wrote: > > How big are the databases that you are using? I’d imagine that there would be > huge savings in using a DVCS for small self-contained repositories, however, > there would be a given size where using one would no longer be an advantage. > For example, I can’t imagine a DVCS working at Microsoft; a full enlistment > in one branch in DevDiv is around 300 GB (times that by 100s of branches) – > having everyone pull that down and all the history along with it, would not > be fun. > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Mark Ryall > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 11:19 AM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: Why DVCS, was Re: TFS Feedaback? Anyone moved away from it? > > > > I'm using svn again now after using git and hg for a few years (tfs was in > there too - i don't want to talk about that). I always liked svn and found > it adequate but don't anymore. > > > > There's nothing a DVCS provides that you can't live without - just as 64Kb of > RAM was once perfectly adequate. > > > > There are just a whole lot of things with DVCS that suddenly become easier or > possible. While you might not have considered these things earlier (because > you couldn't), you really miss them when you can't. > > They are insanely fast - especially git. You will notice how fast they are > every time you need to do a commit. Insanely fast encourages more frequent > commits. The fact that after a clone, you end up with the entire history of > a project locally (including every branch) in far less time than svn would > take to check out a single code line (due to all the thousands of tiny > control files it needs to create in every directory) is the winner for me. > > > > Hosting is free or really cheap (bitbucket/github/launchpad). > > > > For an open source project, fork/send pull request is a much lower barrier to > entry for collaboration than checkout/email patch file. If you accept a pull > request, that person's commit becomes part of your codebase as them without > you needing to provide direct commit access (as opposed to their changes > being committed from a patch by you). > > I prefer to avoid branching where possible but they make branching > effortlessly easy. Merging with git/hg is trivial and is properly tracked > unlike with svn. Merging is always awful but git in particular seems to have > some preternatural ability to help you get it right. > > DVCS won't make you taller, more muscular or attractive though (i've tried - > it really doesn't work) so use your best judgement. > > On Wednesday, 3 November 2010 at 6:43 PM, silky wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Joseph Cooney <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 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 sur e 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. > > > Yeah, this is what I thought. And I can't help but feel this is > totally overrated. I mean, I don't know a single person who would say > using SVN is slow. It's never slowed me down at all (perhaps I'm just > slow in general?). Checkout takes a while, sure, but you don't do that > every day. Infact, you normally only do it a few times, perhaps when > creating a branch or something. > > O kay, so you are telling me that perhaps git/hg is better because you > automatically get your 'own' repo and you need to specifically 'push' > it to the core; thus kind of creating a versioned development pattern > automatically. Alright. I can accept that as useful. > > > > > > High-level summary (from my POV) - DVCS well in a super-set of > configurations to old skool SVN/TFS/CVS > 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." > >
