develooper Front page | perl.bootstrap | Postings from July 2000

Re: Perforce vs CVS

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Nick Ing-Simmons
Date:
July 26, 2000 07:19
Subject:
Re: Perforce vs CVS
Message ID:
200007261417.PAA06764@gabrielle.tiuk.ti.com
John Tobey <jtobey@john-edwin-tobey.org> writes:
>
>OK, this is starting to bug me.  I would contribute more to Perl 5 if
>it were in CVS instead of Perforce.  Having to use rsync to bring
>bleadperl up-to-date is a royal PITA.  CVS *has* 3-way merge, and the
>Emacs client gives it a reasonable front end.

Okay here is my slant on this - I use perforce for Tk and for work I have 
done on perl. We used SCCS, raw RCS, a weird Cadence thing called TDM, 
and now ClearCase at work.
Work wise we evaluated CVS (about five years ago?) and at the time found 
it near impossible to set up.

Of all of these perforce is fastest and easiest to set up, ClearCase has
most features. 

Perforce was really easy to use from Win32 dialup in Dallas (24K if I was lucky)
collecting from repository in UK (as it was then).

The perforce client is free - the server pays the per-user fees and those are 
zero for open source. (The server is free for some small user/client numbers
too - enough to try it and see.)

For me CVS would be another learning curve - but if that is what we decide 
then so be it.

I have no intention of ever using emacs ;-)

-- 
Nick Ing-Simmons


Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About