considering a source control app

merk · Post by **merk** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:41 pm

hi all,

I'm looking for a source/version control application. Several people recommended vault. I also got a few recommendations for cvs/subversion.

What i want this software to do is:

version control of web pages (html, asp, aspx etc). Right now pretty much all of these pages are edited via frontpage on a dev server and published using frontpage or ftp'ed or edited directly on the live server. So i need something that can do version control and do it without adding more steps (or at least a minimum) to the way we currently push new files.

And i'll also need it to handle some visual studio files as well.

Right now there will be 2 people accessing the files and potentially a 3rd. Because of the pricing of vault, i'm leaning heavily towards cvs since spending close to $900 to allow 3 people to log in to vault seems overpriced to me (especially when compared to free

)

Anyone want to voice an opinion on this? Is there some compelling reason i should consider vault even with the price? Does anyone suggest i go with cvs/subversion?

thanks

ericsink · Post by **ericsink** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:58 am

Subversion and CVS are good tools. (I'll confess to a fondness for the former, not so much for the latter.) Your situation sounds rather simple, as if perhaps almost any version control solution would work as long as you can get used to the UI.

If one of these open source tools will meet your needs, we won't feel crushed. As commercial solutions go, Vault is one of the least expensive, but if price is your primary decision factor, it's difficult to beat "zero".

merk · Post by **merk** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 9:23 am

well shortly after making that post i discovered there's a free version of vault with just 1 login, which i think would work for our purposes. I already installed it and it seems to be working ... although i didnt get much past just making a new repository and adding files to it.

The one thing (so far) that i wish the vault client could do would be to list folders on the remote server. Because right now the way things tend to happen is i work directly on the live server (since the dev server is sitting behind a cable modem). So for me to update a file in a repository, it means i have to upload the file and then log into the server via remote desktop and commit the new/updated file. or am i missing an easier way to do that?

I'm hoping to get this working as smoothly as possible so no one gets lazy and just dont bother to do checkin's

mlippert · Post by **mlippert** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:24 pm

Editing live files is a bad practice.

Ignoring that, I don't think the single user version of Vault is a good idea for you either, since you have 2 or 3 people making changes to the files.

One of the benefits of a source control system (along with history, and being able to recover old versions) is accountability, knowing who it was that actually made what change. If 3 people are sharing the same user, you lose that.

I think, given what you've said that I'd recommend that you look into using Subversion (not CVS), and check out TortoiseSVN as the frontend.

If your team isn't currently using SourceSafe you will have the same source control learning curve for Vault or Subversion (negating one of the advantages of Vault).

The other advantage of Vault is that there is a very responsive team at SourceGear to help with any problems that may arise, and that is actively (ie that's their job) working on improvements to the product.

That's not to say that you won't get support from the folks working on Subversion, and they are still working on improvements to it as well, but you haven't paid them, and they may also have other priorities in life.

For our company, those advantages make paying for Vault well worth the cost.

Mike

merk · Post by **merk** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:58 pm

Thanks for the feedback mike.

Yes, i know editing live files is bad, but until we can set up a dev server thats accessible on the net, its the only option really. I can copy the files to my local machine and edit them, but since i'm running xp locally, that wont work too well. Generally speaking editing them live is only done on sites that havent gone officially live yet anyhow. if i am making changes to a busy site I either copy the page to where its not linked and edit it that way...or i make my changes fast

So far doing it this way hasnt caused any problems, other then my changes sometimes getting wiped out when someone uploads a file and over-writes what i did (hence my need for a version control system).

I've got vault up and running right now. I dont think the 1 login is going to cause us a problem, since right now its just me and one other person. So if i know i didnt check in a file and something is wrong ... its pretty obvious who did

The 3rd person hasnt come into the picture yet. I was thinking when/if we need to start keeping track of who did what, we can just put a notation in the comments field.

if you still think subversion would be a better choice, i'll look into installing that and trying it before we start getting used to vault.

mlippert · Post by **mlippert** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:08 pm

I've got subversion set up at home on a Windows 2000 machine using Apache to connect to it via https. I'm not sure how comfortable you are w/ those technologies, but I think you should check it out.

I see that you understand why editing live files is bad

, I just felt I had to comment, just in case.

Mike

merk · Post by **merk** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:23 pm

mlippert wrote:I've got subversion set up at home on a Windows 2000 machine using Apache to connect to it via https. I'm not sure how comfortable you are w/ those technologies, but I think you should check it out.

I see that you understand why editing live files is bad , I just felt I had to comment, just in case.

Mike

Ahhh now i remember why i didnt try subversion ... i didnt feel like installing a webserver (apache) just for it. I'm familar with apache under linux ... and i assume apart from the install that configuring it on windows would be similar. But it doesnt seem like its worth the effort. Although if i am reading the subversion page correctly, then if i install apache, it will allow me to browse the files on the server. I'm just leery of installing a webserver just for this one application. Thats just one more thing i have to maintain and update as patches/security plugs come out.

So to make sure i am understanding this, if i install subversion w/apache, i'll get the ability to browse the remote files and to use https. If i dont install apache, i lose those but i'll still be able to use a client like TortoiseSVN to work with it, even remotely.

Am i incorrect about any of that?

mlippert · Post by **mlippert** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:00 pm

merk wrote:So to make sure i am understanding this, if i install subversion w/apache, i'll get the ability to browse the remote files and to use https. If i dont install apache, i lose those but i'll still be able to use a client like TortoiseSVN to work with it, even remotely.

Am i incorrect about any of that?

That sounds correct, but I never really checked out the other connection methods that subversion supports, once I decided I was going to use Apache. I know they exist, but I'm very unsure of the capabilities that you gain and lose among them. I think apache also provides more security/user authentication than the other methods.

Granted that installing apache is more difficult than IIS, but you need IIS if you're going to run Vault. I think given that you're going to have multiple users, you don't have any existing source control UI baggage, and free is important, subversion is definitely worth checking out.

Mike

merk · Post by **merk** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:51 pm

hmm ... ok maybe i'll try it. I've just recently decided to cut back on just installing any app or server when needed. I recently (first time) had one of my machines hacked. So i've become much more concerned about security. My thinking is the more services i install, the more possible security holes i open.

I know apache is pretty trusted, and since it would be locked down and i wouldnt be installing a lot of modules, it should be safe. But right now since my perfect unhacked record has been shattered, i'm being paranoid

Subversion can store everything in berkeleyDB files right? I dont want to have to install a db server too