Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by jplindstrom (594) on 2008.11.23 20:18 (#65963) Journal

    In retrospect, years later, that has to be the absolutely worst version control system ever.

    Stay. Away!

    I'm not kidding here.

    When the proponents, who invariably don't use it day to day, try the line "well, it's not _just_ a version control system..." and argues that the integration with other systems, blah blah blah, and auditing, blah blah blah, and release manager this and release manager that, blah blah... just don't listen to them.

    These are bogus arguments, and the effort spent on making all those things happen with any other system is bound to be less than actually using Synergy.

    In short:

    It's slow as hell even when running on massive hardware.

    Its preferred working mode is pessimistic locking. Enough said.

    That's because the merge facilities are stone age.

    It's very general, which means it's a) very complex to get working the way you want and b) it's lousy at dealing with specific things. Like version control.

    It requires someone to REALLY know how to do things to set things up in a non-broken way. Even the consultants they sent managed to set up the whole thing in a way that always caused merge conflicts in completely unrelated branches.

    Summary: This is Enterprise Software at its worst.