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

RE: Re: Subversion vs AccuRev

From: Deepak V. <bc92309_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:57:55 -0700 (PDT)

We had been Subversion users for over a year, but we ran into difficulties with the team in India as well as

making changes to the release at the end of each 2-week iteration. We found that merging was a real problem for

us, and it often lead to regressions and other mistakes. We evaluated a number of tools, including Perforce,

ClearCase and AccuRev, and we ended up going with AccuRev (it was primarily a management decision). I had

actually wanted to stay on Subversion, but I was over-ruled.

One of the keys to deploying AccuRev here was making sure everyone was trained (it took 1-2 hours to get each

developer up to speed on our process in AccuRev). The new terminology, as noted here, was indeed a pain in the

neck to learn. I really don't understand why they can't use standard terms.

Their stream architecture has definitely helped us manage multiple releases, and it keeps everthing straight

without the need for last minute merging. This was the isue that led us to look at new tools in the first place,

and it has delivered.

Also, their support has been excellent. It took us about a week to do the full transition, and they had someone

onsite most of that time to deal with issues like integration into our JIRA system.

In summary, while I do generally prefer free tools, I believe that we are getting good value from AccuRev given

the lack of issues we've had since we made the switch.


To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-10-13 23:31:13 CEST

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