Source Code Control
in [Embedded]
|
From: Tom Lucas on 7 Nov 2006 08:52 In the past our source code control has been based largely around CD backups and individual's memories of why a change was made and where the source is stored. I think the time has come whereby a more ordered method of control needed but I do not want to add a big administrative burdon to my development processes. We are a small R&D department and only one of us is ever likely to be working on a piece of code at any one time and there are no major approval processes to be integrated. However, we do produce special cuts of code for most customers so we have an awful lot of slightly different versions of the same software that need to be stored in a manner that can keep on top of it. What method/package would people recommend? I've read through the "Alternatives to Visual Source Safe" thread from July and people there seemed to advocate CVS/SVN and PVCS. Noone seems to like VSS. I would need something that would run on Windows, because the department is not readed to get nixed up just yet, and I would prefer it to be cheap/free. I would like to avoid any unnecessary complexity because I don't envisage the size or number of our projects to change hugely in the medium term to take advantage of it. I could probably survive with a restricted access drive on a network server with a database/spreadsheet recording what is stored. Perhaps I could implement a "live" production area and a "development" area and only the QA director would have access to move development builds into the live area for release. What do you reckon? Thanks Tom
From: toby on 7 Nov 2006 09:21 Tom Lucas wrote: > In the past our source code control has been based largely around CD > backups and individual's memories of why a change was made and where the > source is stored. ... > What method/package would people recommend? I've read through the > "Alternatives to Visual Source Safe" thread from July and people there > seemed to advocate CVS/SVN and PVCS. Noone seems to like VSS. > > I would need something that would run on Windows, ... > > What do you reckon? I've been using Subversion for a few years. The pluses: - easy to learn/admin/use - supported by many client tools/plugins on all platforms - very reliable - powerful CLI - atomic commits (incl renaming), unlike CVS - convenient protocols (e.g. http/https) - smoothly supports distributed development - very easy to integrate with and extend (issue trackers, repository browsers, etc) The only qualification might be if you're working with huge codebases, you may want the rumoured speed benefits of a commercial package like Perforce. As for VSS... the definitive summary is: "Visual SourceSafe? It would be safer to print out all your code, run it through a shredder, and set it on fire." (via http://jeremycoenen.com/blog/index.php/archive/subversion-just-plain-rocks/ ) > > Thanks > Tom
From: FreeRTOS.org on 7 Nov 2006 09:27 ttoby" <toby(a)telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message news:1162909264.750932.91420(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Tom Lucas wrote: >> In the past our source code control has been based largely around CD >> backups and individual's memories of why a change was made and where the >> source is stored. ... >> What method/package would people recommend? I've read through the >> "Alternatives to Visual Source Safe" thread from July and people there >> seemed to advocate CVS/SVN and PVCS. Noone seems to like VSS. >> >> I would need something that would run on Windows, ... >> >> What do you reckon? > > I've been using Subversion for a few years. The pluses: > - easy to learn/admin/use > - supported by many client tools/plugins on all platforms > - very reliable > - powerful CLI > - atomic commits (incl renaming), unlike CVS > - convenient protocols (e.g. http/https) > - smoothly supports distributed development > - very easy to integrate with and extend (issue trackers, repository > browsers, etc) > I would second that - plus provide link to a nice Windoze GUI: http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ If you are wanting a simple installation you can just use a TortoiseSVN client on each machine, have a simple file server to store your repository, and thats it. There is no need for a separate SVN server installation unless you are wanting to do something more clever. Regards, Richard. + http://www.FreeRTOS.org + http://www.SafeRTOS.com for Cortex-M3, ARM7, ARM9, HCS12, H8S, MSP430 Microblaze, Coldfire, AVR, x86, 8051, PIC24 & dsPIC
From: Tom Lucas on 7 Nov 2006 09:43 "toby" <toby(a)telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message news:1162909264.750932.91420(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Tom Lucas wrote: >> In the past our source code control has been based largely around CD >> backups and individual's memories of why a change was made and where >> the >> source is stored. ... >> What method/package would people recommend? I've read through the >> "Alternatives to Visual Source Safe" thread from July and people >> there >> seemed to advocate CVS/SVN and PVCS. Noone seems to like VSS. >> >> I would need something that would run on Windows, ... >> >> What do you reckon? > > I've been using Subversion for a few years. The pluses: > - easy to learn/admin/use It would need to be for me to attempt it ;-) Once up and running does it need much maintenance or is it just a case of making sure it is storing to a backed up medium? > - supported by many client tools/plugins on all platforms IAR reckons they support systems that conform to the Microsoft SCC interface - does that include Subversion? Also Rowley's Crossworks supports Microsoft Visual SourceSafe, SourceGear SourceOffSite 3.5.1 and CVS so would I be right in assuming that Subversion would be OK too? > - very reliable > - powerful CLI Hopefully a GUI too :-) > - atomic commits (incl renaming), unlike CVS I'm not entirely sure what that is. Does it mean you can rename a file in a project without having to roll the build number of the whole project? > - convenient protocols (e.g. http/https) > - smoothly supports distributed development > - very easy to integrate with and extend (issue trackers, repository > browsers, etc) > > The only qualification might be if you're working with huge codebases, > you may want the rumoured speed benefits of a commercial package like > Perforce. The quantity of code is fairly small but. I have a big graphics library though and there are a fair few files (thousands) in it. However, it rarely changes so I wouldn't check it out often. It's more the number of slightly different versions of the same application code that needs to be kept on top of. Presumably I could use the same piece of code across many projects if it is common to all? > As for VSS... the definitive summary is: "Visual SourceSafe? It would > be safer to print out all your code, run it through a shredder, and > set > it on fire." > (via > http://jeremycoenen.com/blog/index.php/archive/subversion-just-plain-rocks/ > ) It probably costs a fortune too. >> Thanks >> Tom >
From: toby on 7 Nov 2006 10:33
Tom Lucas wrote: > "toby" <toby(a)telegraphics.com.au> wrote in message > news:1162909264.750932.91420(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Tom Lucas wrote: > >> In the past our source code control has been based largely around CD > >> backups and individual's memories of why a change was made and where > >> the > >> source is stored. ... > >> What method/package would people recommend? I've read through the > >> "Alternatives to Visual Source Safe" thread from July and people > >> there > >> seemed to advocate CVS/SVN and PVCS. Noone seems to like VSS. > >> > >> I would need something that would run on Windows, ... > >> > >> What do you reckon? > > > > I've been using Subversion for a few years. The pluses: > > - easy to learn/admin/use > > It would need to be for me to attempt it ;-) Once up and running does it > need much maintenance or is it just a case of making sure it is storing > to a backed up medium? > > > - supported by many client tools/plugins on all platforms > > IAR reckons they support systems that conform to the Microsoft SCC > interface - does that include Subversion? In practice you can use Subversion without IDE integration (works nicely under the Microchip IDE, for instance). No idea about SCC support, but MS would be actively militating against any open source solutions, this is their idea of supporting their customers' best interests. > Also Rowley's Crossworks > supports Microsoft Visual SourceSafe, SourceGear SourceOffSite 3.5.1 and > CVS so would I be right in assuming that Subversion would be OK too? > > > - very reliable > > - powerful CLI > > Hopefully a GUI too :-) Several. > > > - atomic commits (incl renaming), unlike CVS > > I'm not entirely sure what that is. Does it mean you can rename a file > in a project without having to roll the build number of the whole > project? Every change to a Subversion repository increments the revision number. CVS does not support rename operations at all; Svn implements renames (on directories or files) as a history-preserving copy plus a delete of the original object, wrapped in a transaction. CVS cannot commit a group of changes in a single revision (transaction). Atomic commits allow you to group related or interdependent changes and thereby aid consistency (e.g. buildability) of your code base at any moment in time. > > > - convenient protocols (e.g. http/https) > > - smoothly supports distributed development > > - very easy to integrate with and extend (issue trackers, repository > > browsers, etc) I forgot to mention, "cheap (almost free) tagging". If you want to see the kind of free and commercial tools that are layered on top of Subversion, here's Cenqua's FishEye advanced repository browser as installed on my site: https://www.telegraphics.com.au/fisheye/ > > > > The only qualification might be if you're working with huge codebases, > > you may want the rumoured speed benefits of a commercial package like > > Perforce. > > The quantity of code is fairly small but. I have a big graphics library > though and there are a fair few files (thousands) in it. However, it > rarely changes so I wouldn't check it out often. Subversion will handle that just fine. I've worked with multi-gigabyte repositories of binary files. If you were churning many large binary files, you may find Svn a bit sluggish, but if they're not changing frequently, there's no problem -- server operations (updates, commits) are based on differences only. > It's more the number of > slightly different versions of the same application code that needs to > be kept on top of. Presumably I could use the same piece of code across > many projects if it is common to all? Yes, that's just an organisation issue. Svn gives you freedom to use whatever directory structure suits you, it doesn't impose an organisation (beyond a loose recommendation). > > > As for VSS... the definitive summary is: "Visual SourceSafe? It would > > be safer to print out all your code, run it through a shredder, and > > set > > it on fire." > > (via > > http://jeremycoenen.com/blog/index.php/archive/subversion-just-plain-rocks/ > > ) > > It probably costs a fortune too. I've recently heard quotes for commercial VCS, at a site already happily and effectively using Subversion, in five to six figure range. > > >> Thanks > >> Tom > > |