On 27-Apr-06, at 12:53 PM, Andy Levy wrote:
>
>
> On 4/26/06, Keith <kstephens@bizjournals.com> wrote:
> Can you provide me any pros and cons between using subversion and
> using Visual Source Safe?
>
>
> Microsoft doesn't even use VSS, and haven't for many years. VSS is
> a nightmare to maintain from a server admin perspective, and you
> are almost guaranteed to lose data eventually. Backups are not
> simple. The interface is clumsy and outdated. There's an API
> provided for coding your own scripts/programs against it, but we
> never managed to find very good documentation on it. IMO, unless
> you need a specific feature of VSS, there is NO compelling argument
> to use it. The lock-modify-unlock model (pessimistc locking) is a
> major hassle if...
...if you actually turn it on. The lock-modify-unlock model is
optional in VSS. There are plenty of real reasons that Subversion is
better... there's no need to make any up :) (I'm not suggesting
anyone has done so intentionally.)
> I speak as both an ex-VSS user and ex-part-time-VSS admin. When we
> implemented VSS at my last job late in '99, it was the best option
> we had for our needs, and worked OK for us...for a while. A year
> ago, I was cursing it daily. We couldn't get backups completed
> because as long as any developer left the VSS client open, or VB,
> or any other application that could "talk" to the server, files in
> the database were open - and because we had people who would leave
> these apps running constantly, our automated nightly backups failed
> *every night* for months on end.
Sounds like you had bad backup software. Back in the days when I
used VSS this was never a problem. I suspect the access rights used
by the backup software let it copy files if they were open or not.
...the rest of your comments are right on.
Without question Subversion is the vastly superior product - but if
you are used to VSS you may need to adjust how you do some things.
(File "sharing" is the most significant IMO.)
Scott
Received on Thu Apr 27 22:26:24 2006