[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: Barry Scott <barry_at_barrys-emacs.org>
Date: 2003-11-08 11:54:49 CET

Looks to me that SourceSafe and Perforce and not that much different in price,
certainly in volume. And the hidden costs of SourceSafe make Perforce cheap.


At 07-11-2003 23:39, 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,
>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).
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 8 11:56:31 2003

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

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