Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > users [DISABLED] > Re: Subversion vs AccuRev

subversion
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Re: Subversion vs AccuRev

Author Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com>
Full name Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com>
Date 2009-10-08 14:24:54 PDT
Message Sent from my [rhymes with tryPod] ;-)

On 8 Oct 2009, at 18:04, James Talbott <jtalbott at gmail dot com> wrote:

> Vishwajeet,
>
> I'm not interested in starting a flame-war between SVN and AccuRev.
> I'm merely stating that Stephen's claims are able to be demonstrably
> proven false,

I have still got the depots with the "lost" versions which accurev
says were kept but refuses to give back

I have still got the depots with the artifacts that disappear when
promoted

I have still got the depots where the state of all streams at specific
points in time is inconsistent (ie if I recreate a snapshot of the
exact same stream at the exact same time I get a different view from
the existing snapshot... ok thus only affects a 3hour period in the
entire 7 year history but I stand by my claims/facts)

> although clearly a newsgroup forum isn't the place where that would
> happen. I'm also stating that I am only aware of a single customer
> who was using AccuRev who migrated away to SVN.

well we will not be renewing

> Others could have done so without my knowledge, but based on our 95%
> plus renewal rate, they would be few and far between, and no one of
> significance.

that may be because once you sip the accurev koolaid it is virtually
impossible to transfer your history out of accurev. (i managed to do
it, but it took a lot of effort and, fortunately for you, I cannot
share the tools I created with the world)

> Lastly, my message was intended to be for Bryan so that he will
> continue to avail himself of the services AccuRev provides him to
> help his organization make an educated decision, as opposed to
> listening to the opinions of someone who clearly has a biased agenda.

I would think that the tone of my original message made it quite
clear. I _hate_ accurev as an SCM.

I used to like it until I dug deep and wrote a conversion utility...
when you see what the data model is under the hood... well have a look
yourself and make up your own mind. my opinion is known

> Unlike many of the zealots out there, AccuRev does not pretend to be
> the solution for everyone. However, should not those considering
> the option evaluate for themselves instead of basing their decision
> on unsubstantiated claims?

I state what we found. for 95% of the problems we found, I know why
accurev is behaving in the counterintuitive way that it is... if I
were to explain, you would probably say, but that is Functions as
Designed. I'd say the design is crap

>
> Best regards,
> ~James
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:52 PM, vishwajeet singh <dextrous85 at gmail dot com
> > wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:13 PM, James Talbott <jtalbott at gmail dot com>
> wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> You are entitled to your opinion about AccuRev and I will not
> attempt to change your mind, but the statements you make below are
> patently false.
>
> > in practice you can never trust promoting
> > changes will have the correct effect.
> >
> > I have promoted files only to have them disappear from the stream
> I am
> > promoting into as well as from the stream I am promoting from...
> only to be
> > replaced by another version.
> >
> > There are the versions that we "kept" which AccuCrap refuses to
> give us
> > back...
> >
> > There are sections of our history which AccuCrap can only give a
> guess as to
> > what the repository looked like (due to problems with the metadata)
>
> I can guess at what company you work for as I am only aware of a
> single customer who has ever migrated from AccuRev to SVN,
>
> was that a joke or you are serious......I personally know couple of
> companies who moved from AccuRev to SVN....obviously I can not name
> them and I was kind of part of that migration.
>
> and that was at the behest of an executive who is no longer even
> with that company. I would encourage Bryan to continue working with
> the excellent resources AccuRev provides to allow them to fully
> evaluate AccuRev's capabilities. At that point, if it isn't for
> your organization, as long as you made a fair decision we support
> it. But please be aware that the FUD Stephen is spreading is not
> the experience of 99.9% of our customers,
> How do you prove that what Stephen is saying is FUD and what you are
> saying is correct..
>
> and is in fact probably caused by a lack of education and interest
> on their part to adopting the solution.
>
> Wow what a lame excuse.....I don't believe even after paying some
> one will do that.....
>
>
> --
> Vishwajeet Singh
> +91-9657702154 | dextrous85 at gmail dot com | http://singhvishwajeet.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/vishwajeets | LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.​com/in/singhvishwaje​et
>
Attachments

« Previous message in topic | 6 of 17 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

Subversion vs AccuRev mci84078 Bryan Wilkins 2009-10-08 08:00:45 PDT
     Re: Subversion vs AccuRev Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com> Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com> 2009-10-08 08:16:56 PDT
         RE: Re: Subversion vs AccuRev jtalbott James Talbott 2009-10-08 09:43:15 PDT
             Re: Re: Subversion vs AccuRev dextrous Dextrous 2009-10-08 09:52:55 PDT
                 Re: Re: Subversion vs AccuRev jtalbott James Talbott 2009-10-08 10:04:26 PDT
                     Re: Subversion vs AccuRev Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com> Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com> 2009-10-08 14:24:54 PDT
         RE: Subversion vs AccuRev "Bolstridge, Andrew" <andy dot bolstridge at intergraph dot com> "Bolstridge, Andrew" <andy dot bolstridge at intergraph dot com> 2009-10-08 10:13:27 PDT
             Re: Subversion vs AccuRev Brett Coon <brett dot coon at gmail dot com> Brett Coon <brett dot coon at gmail dot com> 2009-10-08 12:41:39 PDT
                 Re: Subversion vs AccuRev qu1j0t3 Toby Thain 2009-10-22 19:00:19 PDT
         RE: Re: Subversion vs AccuRev deepakv Deepak V. 2009-10-13 07:57:55 PDT
         RE: Re: Subversion vs AccuRev deepakv Deepak V. 2009-10-13 08:00:25 PDT
     Re: Subversion vs AccuRev John Waycott <javajohn at cox dot net> John Waycott <javajohn at cox dot net> 2009-10-09 07:51:01 PDT
     Re: Subversion vs AccuRev Andreas Magnusson <andreas dot ch dot magnusson at home dot se> Andreas Magnusson <andreas dot ch dot magnusson at home dot se> 2009-10-11 11:21:08 PDT
         Re: Subversion vs AccuRev Purple Streak <mrpurplestreak at googlemail dot com> Purple Streak <mrpurplestreak at googlemail dot com> 2009-10-12 04:34:33 PDT
     Re: Subversion vs AccuRev fweimer Florian Weimer 2009-10-21 01:31:02 PDT
         Re: Subversion vs AccuRev Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com> Stephen Connolly <stephen dot alan dot connolly at gmail dot com> 2009-10-21 01:50:59 PDT
             Re: Subversion vs AccuRev fweimer Florian Weimer 2009-10-21 01:58:53 PDT
Messages per page: