Re: [medium OT]
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 08:34, Listas <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Tzafrir Cohen escribió:
>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 04:52:17PM +0100, Adrian Chapela wrote:
>>> Hello again!
>>> I am looking for a good cvs, control version for web developing. Some of
>>> my web developments was in ASP and because that I need some cvs for use
>>> with it, on windows or in Debian.
>>> Do you know a good version to use with web development ?
>> Are you looking at setting up a CVS server on Debian? Using Debian as a
>> CVS client? Or just looking for CVS hosting?
>> And is CVS your preffered version control system (if so: why??) or are
>> you looking for alternatives?
> Yes, I think the same... my mail needs a bit of explanation.
> I am looking for a system to web version control, for ASP web. From this, I
> am looking for the best solution in Windows, Debian... but I need the server
> of version control. My web is in ASP and a web needs a lot of test, how
> could I install a version control server to commit changes and then test
> with a web browser ? The server should be on the same machine where is the
> web server ? Could I use a Debian server and then copy the files when I am
> doing a commit ?
> All options will be welcome!
I think Git, Mercurial (hg), or Bazaar (bzr) would be the best possibilities.
Git has the most mindshare in the Open Source community, but it is
somewhat harder to learn (though not as bad as it used to be) and I
think it still has the worst Windows support (again, not as bad as it
used to be). Git is often considered the most powerful/flexible but
hg advocates say hg is just as powerful.
Hg is a lot like git in many ways, but it may be a little easier to learn,
and it has better windows support.
Bzr may be the easiest to pick up, and it may still be the slowest. As
far as I know, its Windows support is fine.
Subversion (svn) is a possibility, but nowadays it doesn't really gain
you anything. It used to have the Windows advantage of TortoiseSVN,
(right click Explorer integration), but TortoiseHg seems pretty mature,
and TortoiseBZR is not far behind. TortoiseGit is just getting started,
at version 0.1, released December 12, 2008.
If this was for an OSS project, I would recommend git (unless you wanted
to work closely with Canonical/Ubuntu (bzr) or Mozilla (hg)) but for an
internal, non-shared project like this it doesn't really matter.
As far as structure, I would have one repo on the dev server and
one repo on each dev workstation, that pulls from and pushes to
the dev server. Then finally a repo on the production server that
pulls from the dev server, but never pushes anywhere.
Some adjustment to this basic plan might be needed, e.g. in git, on
the dev server, there should probably be a bare repo that you
push and pull from and a second, non-bare repo that is what that
dev server actually runs from. I don't know if hg and bzr need this
kind of setup or not.