On 1/27/06, Simon Kirk <Simon.Kirk at 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.