Talk:List of revision control software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I willl erase the cleanup, what exactly neads to be cleaned up right now? Moa3333 13:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] CVSNT wasn't in the list.

Considering that CVSNT started back in 1999, while SVN started in 2004. (not to mention other cool things about CVSNT.)

thats messed up, haha. ---Fractal3 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Files-11

Should OpenVMS's Files-11 be included?

[edit] order of programs

is it by popularity? chronology? it sure isn't alphabetical, but I think a clear well-defined order is fine as long as it adds something to the reference.

Agreed. Since chronology and popularity are both too hard to research and prove, I would vote for alphabetical within each category. Next time I'm back on this page, if nobody has objected, I'll probably do it. - kevins

[edit] Evolution description fair?

Article says "Evolution, (available here), simply better SCM and digital asset management" - isn't this a bit point-of-view (the "simply better" part)? Or is it their slogan? Peter S. 09:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. I see the extended description for Evolution was removed, and then reinstated. My opinion is that the current extended description is advertising that does not reflect a neutral point of view and should be reverted. --Seitz 07:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
The Evolution description seems to qualify as spam:
"Adding a link that's snazzier than any of the others. If there's a list of products that gives just their names, and you add a product with a short blurb about how great it is, we'll all know why you did it."--Seitz 08:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Simply better" was/is one of the slogans associated with Evolution. The listing has been updated though and no longer contains this text.

[edit] patch management software

I think quilt isn't a true version control software but rather tool for managing set of patches. Citing Patchwork Quilt's homepage: "The scripts allow to manage a series of patches by keeping track of the changes each patch makes. Patches can be applied, un-applied, refreshed, etc."

From other point of view, if you chose to list here patch management software, why no mention of other such systems, e.g. dpatch? This is unfair :).

After all I must say that quilt is quite (if not very) mature and functional at the moment. Several Debian projects use quilt (and prefer it over abovementioned dpatch) for keeping Debian's separately from Caesar^H^H^H^H^H^Hupstream's. --Xrgtn 13:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCCS categorization

I don't think it's correct to list SCCS as "Proprietary: Server based":

  • SCCS started as proprietary. But the command set is now part of the UNIX standard, and FreeBSD includes an implementation.
  • SCCS simply operates on files, it doesn't have a repository server.

[edit] Marketing pitches

I think describing products as fast and/or easy to use is too subjective and should be removed. The latest such edit: "Mercurial — written in Python. Extremely fast, lightweight, portable, and easy to use." After removing marketing hype should read, "Mercurial — written in Python. Portable." -- Bartosz 20:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This problem is getting worse. Phrases like "next generation" or "powerful" have no place in Wikipedia. They are meaningless marketing hype. -- Bartosz 19:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree that phrases like "advanced", "powerful", and "next generation" are mostly meaningless. I've gone through the article and removed some of the claims that looked like hype to me.
However, I think we need to be careful not to remove information. Some tools really are easier to use, more portable, or more lightweight than others. I don't think we should to water down all the claims to to eliminate any controversy, at the expense of providing a useful comparison. Wmahan. 16:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It's true that some products are easier to use than other and it would be helpful to rank them. The problem is: Who would do this ranking? As for portability, just listing the platforms is good enough and it's objective. --- Bartosz 02:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also what is CVSNT doing in the 'widely used and accepted' section?! I don't think it's any more widely used than the other obscure ones or am I missing something? And if they've been at it since 1999...

I just removed reference to Perforce having a 'scalable' client-server architecture - without categorising scalable in this context it's just marketing. Also, Perforce doesn't seem to be scalling very well in our installation.... --212.159.69.172 18:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

StarTeam text is overboard: "A robust platform... promotes team communication and collaboration..." I don't know enough about it to supply a better description. Paul F. Williams 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internal links

If someone had a mind to it, it would be nice to replace all the external links with internal (possibly red) links followed by the internal link. e.g., replace:

with

  • TLIB [1] - ...

Maybe there's a tool to make this easier. Basically, all these tools warrant actual articles about them, rather than just a link to the corporate website. Stevage 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki

I've added MediaWiki to the list, since technically it meets the criteria for being revision control software. If that was too bold, then let me know and I'll revert or change it. --Bill Clark 12:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it warrants inclusion in a separate category. MediaWiki, to my mind, *is* not revision control software, but it *has* it built in. MediaWiki is not well suited at all to storing revisions of a project written in C, for instance. It's really only good at storing revisions of wiki pages - just like lots of software can store revisions of its own data files. Stevage 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkfarm

This list is little more a linkfarm, in violation of WP:EL - Wikipedia is not a directory of software. I am going to remove anything that is not considered notable. By precedent, the best criterion for assessing this is whether the software has an article on Wikipedia. The appropriate way to add software not in the list, assuming it satisfies WP:NOTE and/or WP:SOFTWARE, is to create an article about it. That way, the notability can be established and/or discussed via the usual channels. CiaranG 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Client/Server

I think there's more than just 2 categories for this. For example, Visual SourceSafe is a filesystem based system, not traditional client/server. Client/server would indicate there is some piece of software accepting requests on a server. VSS just reads and writes to a file on the filesystem, and uses it's own form of file locking. There have to be others that do this as well (basically, similar to the way RCS/SCCS operated). I'm not sure what the best way to classify that would be. Maybe this would work better as a comparison chart. TheMadGerman 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .SCC compliant, what is that?

Some revision control systems are marked as SCC compliant: RCS, SCCS, Clearcase, Telelogic Synergy.

It is not explained in the article what ".scc compliant" means. Nor is it evident from the linked page http://filext.com/file-extension/scc. That page doesn't use the word "compliant". The article should either remove the use of ".scc compliant", explain its meaning, or link to a page that does explain it. --HelgeStenstrom 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)