当前位置： 文江博客话题详情

塑料 SCM 与 Mercurial？需要 Windows 7 上的 Visual Studio 2005 源代码管理

发布于 2024-10-11 19:21:59 字数 397 浏览 4 评论 0原文

1) 有人用过Plastic SCM吗？可靠吗？

2）它与 Mercurial 相比如何？ （看起来这是 Windows 上 DVCS 的一个很好的候选者。我尝试过 Git，但真的不喜欢它。）

3）我真的很喜欢 TortoiseSVN。我喜欢中心模型，因为我认为如果它在存储库中，它就是“安全的”并且可以被跟踪。问题是：分布式版本控制 (DVCS) 带来的兴奋值得大肆宣传吗？

我的环境：

  1. Windows 7

  2. Windows 开发（Dev. Studio 2005、SQL Server 2003）；集成会很好

  3. 两个开发人员共享相同的代码

  4. 几乎每天都将代码推送到生产服务器

原文

1) Has anyone used Plastic SCM? Is it reliable?

2) How does it compare with Mercurial? (It seems like this is a good candidate for DVCS on Windows. I tried Git and really didn't like it.)

3) I really like TortoiseSVN. I like a central model because of the piece of mind that if it's in the respository it's "safe" and tracked. Here is the question: Is the excitement over distributed version control (DVCS) worth the hype?

My environment:

  1. Windows 7

  2. Windows development (Dev. Studio 2005, SQL Server 2003); integration would be nice

  3. Two developers sharing same code

  4. push code to production servers almost daily

如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。

扫码二维码加入Web技术交流群

发布评论

需要 登录 才能够评论， 你可以免费 注册 一个本站的账号。

评论（3）

熟人话多 2024-10-18 19:21:59

我的答案将偏向塑料 SCM，因为我是开发人员之一。话虽这么说，让我们尝试回答您的问题：

  1. 塑料 SCM 可靠吗？目前，全球范围内的大型、超大型、中型和小型团队都在使用它。我们（还没有：P）没有像 Git 或 Mercurial 这样庞大的用户群，但我们依靠一支充满热情和才华横溢的团队。例如，检查我们的负载测试结果 （我们确实将塑料置于重负载下）。

  2. 它与 Mercurial 相比如何？虽然我认为我们可以不断地击败每个“传统”版本控制功能，但就核心功能集而言，Git 和 Hg 可能是最难的。让我们关注汞，塑料添加了什么？我想我可以讲几个小时，但让我们尝试列出一个简短的清单，基本上是：

    • 易于使用的工具：来自 GUI、ShellExtension、Visual Studio 插件、集成 diff/merge（是的！尝试一下我们的 XDiff/XMerge 具有代码重构支持！），Branch Explorer 基本上可以让您从图形角度进行所有分支和合并...好的，使用塑料，您不仅可以获得“发动机”，还可以获得整辆车以及您需要的所有部件。我可以为 VS 用户提及其他工具，例如 方法历史记录支持 ，而且这个列表越来越长......
    • 像 Mercurial：完全设计用于处理分支和合并。从我的角度来看，塑料中的（有偏见的）分支更简单，因为默认情况下存在“命名分支”。我们建议用户拥抱“每个任务分支”.
    • 可配置的数据库后端：您可以将数据存储在 SQL Server、Firebird、Oracle、MySql 甚至小型 SQLite 中（如果需要构建自己的应用程序，则稍后使用标准 SQL 接口）。我们没有在这里重新发明轮子：默认情况下是事务性的;)
    • 基于 ACL 的安全性：对于小团队来说可能不是关键，但它确实存在。
    • 对于高级合并：Hg 中的每个“变更集”最多只能有两个父级，而 Plastic 中则没有此限制，但是好吧，我们可以就细节争论几个小时……也许不值得；）< /里>
    • 同样对于高级集成商：我们确实在项目级别处理合并跟踪，这意味着我们可以无缝地进行“部分合并”（仅合并分支的一部分）。使用 Hg 和 Git 有点困难。

  3. DVCS 值得吗？当然是。。好的，一步一步：

    • DVCS 的好处不仅在于它支持分布式开发，还因为所有新的 DVCS 系统（Hg、Git、Bazaar、Plastic...）都实现了合并跟踪权。因此，归根结底，对于许多人来说，DVCS 就是正确完成合并跟踪（不像推/拉那么令人震惊，但却是事实）。
    • 能够在笔记本电脑上拥有自己的 SCM 真是太棒了。我一直以这种方式使用 Plastic（现在我有一个基于 SQLite 的服务器，超快且超轻）很多年了，而且……嗯，更好：你永远不会因为互联网连接而减慢速度，你可以随时合并（记住每个任务分支），检查您自己的更改......一切。完成后将更改推送回主服务器。简直更好了。
    • 现在：Plastic SCM 与 Git 和 Hg 不同，能够在两种模式下工作。您想要拥有一个中央服务器并直接连接到它而无需中间副本吗？你可以做到的。您想以真正的 DVCS 风格工作吗？你也可以做到。这就是塑料如此柔韧的原因。

最后，如果您使用 Visual Studio + W7 + 2 开发人员...去获取免费的 Plastic SCM 社区版...Hg，正如我所说，是一个很好的核心，但 Plastic 至少同样好，并且包含所有内容作为 Win 开发人员，您习惯使用的工具（除非您喜欢 CLI 而讨厌鼠标……即使那样，Plastic 也有 CLI :P）。

My answer is going to be biased towards Plastic SCM since I'm one of the developers. That being said, let's try to answer your questions:

  1. Is Plastic SCM reliable? It is currently used by big, very big, medium and small teams all around the globe. We don't have (yet :P) a huge user base like Git or Mercurial, but we count on a extremely passionated and talented team. Check, for instance, our load test results (we really put plastic under heavy load).

  2. How does it compare with Mercurial? While I think we can consistently beat every "traditional" version control feature by feature, Git and Hg are probably the toughest ones in terms of the core feature set. Let's focus on Hg, what does Plastic add? I think I could talk for hours but let's try to come up with a short list, basically:

    • Easy to use tools: from the GUI, the ShellExtension, Visual Studio Plugin, integrated diff/merge (yes! give a try to our XDiff/XMerge with code refactor support!), the Branch Explorer that basically let's you do all branching and merging from a graphical perspective... Ok, with Plastic you not only get the "engine", you get the entire car with all the pieces you need. I can mention other tools for VS users like the method history support, and the list grows and grows...
    • Like Mercurial: totally designed to handle branching and merging. From my point of view (biased) branching is simpler in Plastic since "named branches" are there by default. We propose users to embrace "branch per task".
    • Configurable database backends: you can store your data (and later use standard SQL interfaces if you need to build your own apps around) in SQL Server, Firebird, Oracle, MySql or even a tiny SQLite. We didn't reinvent the wheel here: transactional by default ;)
    • ACL based security: probably not key for a small team, but it is there.
    • For advanced mergers: each "changeset" in Hg is restricted to maximum two parents, you don't have this limitation in Plastic, but ok, we could argue about the details for hours... maybe not worth ;)
    • Also for advanced integrators: we do handle merge tracking at the item level which means we can do "partial merges" (merge only part of a branch) seamlessly. It is a little bit harder with Hg and Git.

  3. Is DVCS worth? Of course it is. Ok, step by step:

    • DVCS is good not only because it enables distributed development, is good because all new DVCS systems (Hg, Git, Bazaar, Plastic...) implement merge tracking right. So, at the end of the day for many people DVCS is just about merge tracking done right (less shocking than pushing/pulling but true).
    • Being able to have your own SCM on your laptop is simply great. I've been working with Plastic this way (now I have a SQLite based server, super-fast and super-light) for years and... well, is simply better: you never get slowed down by the internet connection, you can merge whenever you want (remember branch per task), review your own changes... everything. And then push your changes back to the main server when you're done. It is simply better.
    • Now: Plastic SCM, unlike Git and Hg, is able to work in the two modes. Do you want to have a central server and directly connect to it without intermediate replicas? You can do it. Do you want to work in true DVCS style? You can do it too. That's why Plastic is so flexible.

Finally, if you use Visual Studio + W7 + 2 developers... go and grab a FREE Plastic SCM Community Edition... Hg, as I said, is a good core, but Plastic is at least as good and comes packaged with all the tools you're used to have as a Win developer (unless you love the CLI and hate the mouse... and even then Plastic has a CLI too :P).

回复 原文
自由范儿 2024-10-18 19:21:59

我尝试过 Plastic SCM，虽然它看起来更强大，但我发现它使用起来比 Mercurial 麻烦得多。有两件事是我特别不喜欢的：

  1. Subversion 和 Mercurial 会将文件与原始版本进行比较来决定需要签入哪些内容，而 Plastic SCM 要求您在编辑文件之前明确签出文件，并且还默认情况下将文件标记为只读。这就是 Team Foundation Server 的运行方式，并且它可能是 TFS 比其他任何功能都招致更多批评的一个“功能”，因此看到 Plastic 效仿它令人非常失望。我知道您可以将 Plastic 配置为不将文件标记为只读，但我不知道这样做在实践中效果如何。

  2. 我发现与 Mercurial 的 GUI 前端 TortoiseHg 相比，它的 GUI 工具设计过度且难以使用。他们确实需要控制他们的图形设计师。毕竟，它是一个版本控制工具，而不是一部电影。

I've played around with Plastic SCM a bit and while it seems to be more powerful, I found it much more cumbersome to use than Mercurial. There were two things in particular that I didn't like:

  1. Whereas Subversion and Mercurial compare files against their original versions to decide what needs to be checked in, Plastic SCM requires you to check out files explicitly before editing them, and also marks files as read-only by default. This is the way that Team Foundation Server operates and it's probably the one "feature" of TFS that attracts more criticism than any other, so it was a big disappointment to see Plastic emulate it. I understand that you can configure Plastic to not mark files as read-only, but I have no idea how well it works in practice if you do so.

  2. I found its GUI tools pretty over-designed and awkward to use compared to Mercurial's GUI front end, TortoiseHg. They really need to rein in their graphic designers. It's a version control tool, not a movie, after all.

回复 原文
意中人 2024-10-18 19:21:59

我一直在研究塑料和塑料。 Hg 现在已经有一段时间了，虽然我玩了一下，但我真的开始爱上塑料了。我之所以这么做是因为在我目前的工作中，我们使用 SVN 并且代码合并非常手动，我认为必须有更好的方法。因此，在空闲时间，我开始接触塑料并喜欢它。这些工具非常直观；没有更好的方式来描述它们。哦，当然，我对自己的命令行能力毫不怀疑，但是对于看到你正在做的事情还是有话要说。当然，每个人都有一个命令行，所以我从不关心任何 VCS 的这一部分。

至于 DVCS，塑料确实为您提供了比我在任何其他系统中看到的更多的灵活性。拥有存储库的多个副本并来回推送/拉取更改非常容易。此外，由于 GUI 可以在所有平台上运行，所以一切都是一样的。我可以选择使用我想要的东西，我的队友也可以。

我仍在学习和深入研究，但我建议您自己进行一些研究，下载并尝试一下。我没有阅读手册就可以开始使用它。那简直太棒了！

I've been looking into both Plastic & Hg for a while now and while I've played around a bit, I'm really starting to fall in love with Plastic. The reason I got into this is because at my current job, we use SVN and code merges are very manual and I thought there had to be a better way. So, in my free time, I've got into Plastic and loved it. The tools are simply intuitive; there's no better way to describe them. Oh, sure, I have no doubts in my command line abilities, but there's something to be said for seeing what you're doing. Of course everyone has a command line, so I was never concerned in that part of any VCS.

As for DVCS, Plastic really gives you more flexibility than I've seen with any of the other systems. Very easy to have multiple copies of a repository and to push/pull changes back and forth. Also, since the GUI works on all platforms, everything is the same. I can choose to use what I want, and so can my team mates.

I'm still learning and digging into things, but I would recommend doing some research yourself by downloading it and giving it a try. I didn't read a manual and I could get started using it. That is simply great!

回复 原文
~没有更多了~

关于作者

独自←快乐

暂无简介

0 文章
0 评论
23 人气
发私信

相关话题

更多

热门标签

操作系统 程序设计 IT运维 Linux系统管理 JavaScript 服务器应用 solaris C/C++ PHP Shell BSD Vue.js aix Oracle Python HTML 系统管理 HTML5 CSS 前端
更多

推荐作者

linfzu01

文章 0 评论 0

§对你不离不弃

文章 0 评论 0

可遇━不可求

文章 0 评论 0

枕梦

文章 0 评论 0

qq_3LFa8Q

文章 0 评论 0

JP

文章 0 评论 0

更多

友情链接

文江博客
    我们使用 Cookies 和其他技术来定制您的体验包括您的登录状态等。通过阅读我们的 隐私政策 了解更多相关信息。 单击 接受 或继续使用网站，即表示您同意使用 Cookies 和您的相关数据。
    原文