On 1/27/06, Simon Kirk Simon.Kirk@pinesoft.co.uk wrote:
Hi Squeakers. Bit of an internal monologue here about something that's been concerning me about Squeak development for a while now: Source control. Please excuse the verbosity.
And please excuse me for snipping it all in my response :-).
The basic question is: can you do optimistic version control with MC with a larger group. Modulo some performance problems (which, it turns out, are related to source file writing and should be fairly simple to remove), I think with MC(+MCC) you have everything you need in the tools. You cannot (should not?) name versions, but I've used "special comments" in CVS with great success (I first used CVS when it was a bunch of shell scripts around RCS, so I'm reasonably experienced with the system), and with MC that shouldn't be any different. The merge tool is simple but sufficient (and easy enough to extend - try to extend CVS while you're working with it ;-)), and branching support is very good. Every MC version carries around its whole version history, so developers can commit versions to private repositories and then a final version to the shared repository; MC will see the gaps and just skip over them.
It might not do 100% of what you want right away, but I am 100% sure that no version control in the world will do it <snipped rant about how bad CVS sucks>. So it will need work to make it good for your organization, but it is good enough to start with and decently enough coded to make it adaptable to your needs.
Note, by the way, that I would object against any single system under development of a single 30-40 person team :-).
I know ENVY only from VA Smalltalk, and I can tell you confidently that compared to MC it sucks.