A class of VersionControl
systems where multiple users/machines can have mirrors of the repository. They can be used to implement local branches, offline operation and decentralized control of a project.
Anyone have any experience to compare D
istributedVersionControlVsClearcase? The web is painfully silent on this question.... -- BillTrost
is a rather specific revision control system, and DistributedVersionControl
is a rather broad abstraction. They don't seem like things that would ever be compared directly. On review of the ClearCase
entry on the Wikipedia, it seems that ClearCase
essentially provides a multi-user virtual filesystem (at $4250 per concurrent user, no less) with the basic checkout+locking approach to avoiding edit conflicts. It supports views and a number of other things... but, ultimately, one would be more tempted to compare it to other centralized-repository models such as ConcurrentVersionsSystem
is, by nature, merge-based - each and every user has a what is, essentially a full-blown repository that completely tracks its own versions without implicitly contacting any other 'official' source (making 'official' a political designation, not a technical one.) DistributedVersionControl
systems must, and do, provide considerable support for merging repositories and editing conflicts.
Apparently, my question wasn't particularly clear (but thanks for the response, whoever you are). I'm quite comfortable with both Mercurial and darcs, and have more CVS experience than I can stand, so I can compare the two intelligently. However, any attempt to understand what ClearCase
does for you results in people blathering about how "powerful" it is. What's powerful? What can I do easily in ClearCase
that I can't in Mercurial, and vice-versa?
should merit DistributedBugTrackingSoftware?
. There are a few (BugsEverywhere?
and Ditz immediately come to mind) but none are, IMHO, mature enough yet. Does anyone have any suggestions?
FIXMEs in the source code ;)