On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 04:39:35PM -0600, Sean Laurent wrote:
> I had the opportunity to use Perforce for about 2 years and I must say I
> really liked it. It is a mature product with atomic commits, branching,
> integration history (to avoid reintegrating the same changesets), an easy to
> use commandline tool and a really nice GUI. The are two main reasons I use
> Subversion now:
I agree with this -- Perforce is great. The graphical interfaces are quite
good. It is very, very fast on doing updates to your working copy since
the server remembers what files your client has already updated, and
what it has not. However, this also means that it's quite difficult to
work disconnected from the server (as in (2) below).
For a commercial tool, Perforce seems to be fairly cheap, on the whole.
They support tons of operating systems, and even post links to third
party tools that people have written for Perforce (conversion scripts,
etc.).
Perforce doesn't support true renames (although its database does keep
track of them for you) of files and directories.
> 1) Cost. Perforce costs about $750 per seat, while Subversion is obviously
> free. Yes, Perforce has a few features Subversion doesn't have... but it's
> difficult to justify the price.
>
> 2) Offline support. When I worked with Perforce, you had to have an active
> connection to the server to be able to do anything... even "edit" a file.
> According to the Perforce datasheet, they support "offline operation", but I
> don't know anything about it. It may or may not be comparable to how
> Subversion works. In my current office, we have a lot of people with laptops
> who work from home in the evening... it's very convenient for them to be able
> to write code without having to connect to the VPN.
> [SNIP]
- Jared
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 25 18:24:14 2004