

Ask YC:  What revision control system are you using? - iamelgringo

I'd like to hear what you're using and why you like it.  I have a hunch that we're going to be using more distributed version control than your average group, just checking. So...<p>Git?  Bazaar?  Subversion?  TortiseSVN?  Mercurial?  CVS?  Perforce?  or "Revision control is for weak need mortals.  I etch code directly on silicons wafers like the hacker god that I am!"  <p>Talk amongst yourselves.
======
bootload
_"... Quite frankly, I think most open-source SCM's _still_ suck. I'm
constantly amazed that anybody would touch SVN with a ten-foot pole. Talk
about crap. And SVN is at least usable, unlike a lot of other projects. ..."_
[0]

git

small, fast, in active development and cross platform. Fast to install, less
documentation. Originally I used cvs with a p-server which worked nicely
allowing me to distribute dev & other files across other machines. But was a
begger to install. Then I tried svn but never really liked a) lack of clients,
confusing setup documentation.

Using Git now as I wanted a SCM for a new project and it was the fastest to
install & use. Git also has the advantage of doing the same as svn but with
less keystrokes. [1] Can also be used individually as a tool as well as a
group. [2]

Having said that svn, cvs, rcs are still usable just not optimal for me.

[0]
[http://marc.info/?l=git&m=116129092117475](http://marc.info/?l=git&m=116129092117475)

[1]
[http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/tutorial.htm...](http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/tutorial.html)

[2]
[http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/everyday.htm...](http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/everyday.html)

~~~
mechanical_fish
I watched some online videos on git and have now fallen in love, to the extent
that love is possible between a man and an SCM.

The Linus Torvalds Google talk is great fun [0], but it may not actually
convince you -- it'll just goad you. The Randall Schwartz talk [2] is more
practical, and I recommend it. Finally, the Peepcode screencast [3] is worth
the $9 -- it gives examples of git in action, and a handy cheat sheet. It's
what finally pushed me over the edge into full-blown fanboy mode.

[0] <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2199332044603874737>

[1] <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3999952944619245780>

[2] <http://peepcode.com/products/git>

------
tlrobinson
svn

We're using it because it's free, suits our needs fine, and is pretty much the
standard these days (especially for open source projects)

p.s. you know TortiseSVN is just a Windows client for Subversion, right?

~~~
boucher
Seconded. Mostly because I work with Tom, but I also use svn at work, because
it really is the standard.

Distributed version control seems a bit like a fad to me. I admit it has some
nice features, but I expect subversion to adapt the best that it doesn't
already have (which isn't really all that much). They are already working on
implementing local commits, which in my mind is the single biggest missing
feature.

~~~
davidw
Right - version control doesn't strike me as a good place to play on the
bleeding edge. I'll leave that to other people and spend time playing with
something else experimental that won't lose a bunch of my critical data, or
cause unexpected problems.

~~~
pcowans
I agree completely - SVN is very standard, seems to be stable, and basically
does everything most people will need. TortoiseSVN is a great client if you're
using Windows.

~~~
mrevelle
The Linux kernel is fairly important and the kernel developers trust a
"bleeding edge" VCS.

SVN is great for an individual or simple project, but sharing patches between
branches is a nightmare.

~~~
davidw
It's more than fairly important, it's extremely important and big. That means
that it's also a bit of an outlier in terms of lines of code, people involved,
and so on, which is why Linus seems to have undertaken the painful project of
making his own revision control thing.

I'll wait till he's shaken the bugs out until I give it a go, though, as being
an early adopter gives me zero competitive advantage.

------
ivankirigin
Subversion. Also, I'm using Trac as a bug tracker and wiki. It comes with a
nice Subversion viewer.

~~~
wlievens
Exactly ethe same here. Trac is sweet.

------
mhartl
I used Subversion for years, and as awesome as Subversion is, Subversion
really sucks. I use darcs for my personal projects, but it occasionally chokes
for various reasons and some serious bugs have gone unfixed for several years.
I'm now looking at Git, which is distributed like darcs but won't ever have
the same unfixed bugs problem: Git is developed by Linus Torvalds and hosts
the Linux kernel.

------
chris
we have been using darcs for quite some time now. very happy with it thus far.

------
ropiku
I was a user of SVN (the reasons are in the first comments) but now switched
to Git, distributed scm is really nice. I also like the branching features of
Git. And it's very easy to clone a repository, start hacking and committing
local then submitting a patch.

------
inklesspen
I use svn and Mercurial. SVN for work (because the company uses it) and for my
older projects, and Mercurial for my newer projects. I switched to Mercurial
because it seemed like the best distributed system out there, and I like
Python.

------
brlewis
RCS because I'm working solo and setup is instant (emacs: C-x v v). When I
need more I'll probably take the path of least resistance and use subversion,
even though Mercurial is reputed to be superior.

~~~
queensnake
If you use a CVS version of Emacs (maybe even the recently-released one, I
don't remember when Eric Raymond submitted it), Emacs now plays nice with all
the newest VCs as well (well I get errors with git but, it's probably me. It's
/supposed/ to work. I'm sure the others do).

------
tocomment
I've been trying to decide between the distributed ones for months. I'm about
to go with HG. Any dire warnings before I do?

BTW, how to pronounce it, HG, or Mercurial?

~~~
iamelgringo
I think that Mercurial is the official name. "Hg" is the chemical symbol for
mercury.

------
tmm1
darcs, it's distributed, doesn't require a server setup, lets me work without
a network connection, and the cli is extremely user-friendly.

instead of committing files, darcs record lets me pick and choose what changes
to include as part of a patch, resulting in cleaner patches which actually
encompass a logical change to the code.

i've also heard many good things about git

------
flashgordon
mercurial with roundup... though looking to change the bug-tracking that can
have an easier/simpler integration with hg :D

even though it is still pre 1.0, a lot of fixes are going into it, (did i
mention it is written in Python? not that it should matter).

------
jgamman
highlighter pens and a super special 'up to date' folder on my hard drive.

------
slim
i used to use svn at work, and lately i tried git for my own needs.

git seems a lot better but i did not try it extensively.

------
wlievens
Subversion is just plain awesome.

------
superjared
bazaar is great. so is git. i like them both.

