[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Subversion vs. VSS

From: Marc Singer <elf_at_buici.com>
Date: 2003-11-08 20:18:28 CET

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2003, at 5:24 PM, Chris Thomas wrote:
> >
> >On Nov 7, 2003, at 12:21 PM, Kevin Meinert wrote:
> >
> >>One advantage (only one I can see) is that VSS manages binary files
> >>well,
> >>i.e. it has exclusive locking. For this reason I would choose it
> >>over CVS
> >>or subversion at this point, though SVN will have it after 1.0.
> >
> >I think Perforce would be a much better choice than VSS. Perforce
> >operates almost exclusively on exclusive locking, although you can
> >graft CVS-style merges onto it with external tools. Perforce may be
> >expensive, though.
> Um, that's not true. Well, the expensive part is true, but the 'almost
> exclusively on exclusive locking' isn't. While perforce will inform
> you when another user is editing a file when you run 'p4 edit', nothing
> stops you from doing so by default, and there is built in merge support
> that is quite good. It does have an exclusive locking mode, but in my
> experience using it is not the common case (except for binary files).


I was told by a Perforce user that it is possible to exclude others
from commiting while you have a file locked. Yes, they can edit, but
Perforce blocks their commits until you command and unlock the file
making it the problem of other users to handle merging.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 8 20:19:51 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.