Srinivas2007 wrote:
> At our company (a large financial institution) we narrowed the choice down to
> three commercial vendors and SVN. After evaluating and piloting for over
> three months we selected Accurev over SVN and Microsoft VS TFS. We still
> have divisions using mainly ClearCase and some with SVN, but are slowly
> migrating the projects that make sense (where it is necessary to manage many
> releases in parallel or offshore and distributed teams for example) over to
> Accurev as they get a window of opportunity. SVN can be a good enough
> solution for some smaller projects, but it can get hairy when you have to
> support multiple product versions in the field and find bugs down the road.
> You also just don't get the same visibility over the process that Accurev
> provides which benefits both management and developers alike. For us, it
> just didn't make sense to allow SVN to spread and we believe the value we
> get from commercial is well worth the cost.
Hi Srinivas,
Can you detail the actual technical issues that prompt you to use
general statements like "it can get hairy" and "don't get the same
visiblity". We are a large software company using Subversion and do
support multiple versions in the field, quite happily.
Without details your post starts to sound like a troll for Accurev since
it comes spontaneously, nearly a year after the original post, and has
content similar to an Accurev press release which you reposted here:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.software.config-mgmt/browse_thread/thread/5942b288e129515/545c5effae8e56a9?lnk=gst&q=srinivaspatel&rnum=2#545c5effae8e56a9
(Note, I've nothing against Accurev, it may well be a fine product --
I've not used it. The way your post comes just makes me wish for more
details and less generalities.)
Cheers,
-Nathan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 10 19:48:01 2007