Reply to: Free, hosted (SaaS) source control and bug-tracking/issue-management?

[billybiro]

Ah yes, here come the version control wars.

CVS and SVN will be loosely allied against GIT and mercurial.
Everyone will attack VSS.
TFS and ClearCase will stand aloof as they're 'not just version control systems and nobody really understands them'.

I know where you're coming from. The "holy war" between (say) Git and Mercurial can be quite intense.

FWIW, I like both Git & Mercurial and I'm not about to get involved in "defending" one specific version control system.

I do, however, think that DVCS systems, in general, are far superior to centralised VCS systems. And it's perfectly legitimate to have a centralised server with a DVCS set-up. My current gig is exactly like that, but we also get to keep a copy of the entire repository locally, too. This is incredibly useful for quickly and efficiently being able to search through the repo history of commits and file annotations over time. Also means we've got multiple backups of the repository, too!

[d000hg]

I knew they dida chep intro price but I'd forgotten it was that cheap. Definitely worth a consideration, Jira is the daddy of issue-tracking - though a PITA to configure sometimes,

They obviously hope you'll get that 11th user In terms of paid solutions, Fogbugz is my favourite but it's much more expensive in comparison, when you don't have an income stream.

Thanks for the link.

[Freamon]

JIRA is $10/mo for up to 10 users - that's practically free: https://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/pricing

[d000hg]

TFS is OK. Is Perforce still around or is TFS the lone bastion of actually paying for software?

[eek]

TFS and ClearCase will stand aloof as they're 'not just version control systems and nobody really understands them'.

That's because as well as doing source control badly they also do task management, bug tracking... equally half heartedly.

[RasputinDude]

Ah yes, here come the version control wars.

CVS and SVN will be loosely allied against GIT and mercurial.
Everyone will attack VSS.
TFS and ClearCase will stand aloof as they're 'not just version control systems and nobody really understands them'.

[d000hg]

I fear we've gone off-topic now

[RasputinDude]

Woah! SVN? What century are we living in guys? DVCS is the only way to version control your source these days. It seriously is one of those changes that, once you've experienced the improvement with DVCS, you never ever want to go back. Oh, and it's never overkill. On the contrary, it's more lightweight that SVN as it doesn't even need a central server. You can happily just keep your entire repo on your local disk if required.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I've been happily using SVN for years with not a single problem and without need for the distributed part. I would have happily continued using it if I could, but the move to bitbucket required a change to git.

[d000hg]

DVCS is the only way to version control your source these days. It seriously is one of those changes that, once you've experienced the improvement with DVCS, you never ever want to go back.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've been using git for over a year on one client's project (through github) and while I can see the advantages of better branching/merge, they're outweighed by the pain of actually using the damn thing. I definitely want to go back

And I LIKE having a central server - but not having one doesn't make it light-weight, I'm talking about git being a sledgehammer in the same way PhotoShop is overkill for a casual user.

Git is for managing massive projects with tonnes of branches - like the linux kernel. Maybe other DVCS like Mercurial are less awful to work with but most of the stuff I like about git could just as easily be added to SVN - the distributed part is of little interest to me working in a small team, not some open-source landscape.

More to the point, I wonder how on earth new developers get on when introduced to version control using git. CVS/SVN are pretty intuitive for basic stuff, git is a nightmare in comparison.

[billybiro]

lol, you're right. I was a bit reticent to move my svn repositories to git just that they would work ok in bitbucket - but it hasn't been that bad really.

Thanks. Looks like it's DVCS only, but their issue tracker might fit with my assembla SVN

(why oh why do companies have to dictate I use the latest fad when tools with a decade of trustworthiness are still the default, bloody idealist programmers trying to force the issue!!)

Woah! SVN? What century are we living in guys? DVCS is the only way to version control your source these days. It seriously is one of those changes that, once you've experienced the improvement with DVCS, you never ever want to go back. Oh, and it's never overkill. On the contrary, it's more lightweight that SVN as it doesn't even need a central server. You can happily just keep your entire repo on your local disk if required.

[RasputinDude]

lol, you're right. I was a bit reticent to move my svn repositories to git just that they would work ok in bitbucket - but it hasn't been that bad really.

[d000hg]

Sure, but git's horrible Or at the very least, massively overkill for a small project. Plus I know how to use SVN!

A free account's not to be sniffed at though, even if as a way to play with git and use the issue tracker.

[RasputinDude]

+1 for bitbucket

There's a pretty easy upgrade path from subversion to git, so you can maintain your changes and commit histories.

[jamesbrown]

I'm happy with Google Project Hosting, but it's for open source projects only....

[eek]

You're not in MSworld but I thought I'd add Team Foundation Service if anyone who is hits this thread in the future

Edit: actually Eclipse supported too

It's poor though. Yes it does the things requested but it doesn't actually do any of them well.