Sparx Systems Forum
Enterprise Architect => General Board => Topic started by: Molto Mike on December 01, 2004, 03:53:52 am
-
Dear Sparx,
while previous posts regarding this topic are outdated (as far as I found them...), I saw many users asking for native support of Subversion.
So do we... :P
Could you give a some kind of indication on whether you plan to do this at all?
Thanks a lot,
Mike
-
I saw many users asking for ...
Well, eight actually !
According to a Feb 2004 poll here http://www.manageability.org/polls/what-configuration-management-at-work
51% of responders used CVS, with VSS coming in second at 12%, followed by ClearCase at 9%.
Subversion came in 6th at 4%.
I guess Sparx are picking off the biggest names first (assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the figures are representative !)
We use CVS ...
-
Mike, in Germany we call this a "milkmaid calculation". But you are probably right in what you express :'( (I use subversion)
-
Just wondering who is the milkmaid here... ;D
Looking at other polls, subversion looks much better (isn't that surprising?):
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=7273
or: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/pq/62
Those polls might not be that representative after all... :-/
Anyway, I would still love to hear from Sparx themselves whether they have this on their radar or not...
Mike
-
Some people like (eg.) the folder capability of Subversion; I happen to like the unique file version number in RCS/CVS which Subversion has done away with - if I understand correctly.
From this point of view, Sv looks good for some kinds of project, but the RCS/CVS system allows better tracking of file versions and so IMHO is the winner if traceability is one of your priorities - eg for TickIT.
If Sv supported 'proper' file versions, it would have my vote too ! As it is, the repository version increases every time it is modified, and so identical instances of the same file can have different 'version numbers' - not ideal.