Good night

I 've never used a version control system.

- which software recommends to me for begining?

- can we recommends to me a tutorial or basic manual (in spanish, i
prefer) to learning the basic concepts of the version control system?

thank you a lot

ruherflo@gmail.com wrote:
<url: http://subversion.tigris.org/>

They provide an online book that discusses everything you need to know
to get started:
<url: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/>

--
Alan Johnson

ruher...@gmail.com wrote:
I highly recommend Subversion, http://subversion.tigris.org/

http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/es/svn-book.html

Alan Johnson wrote:
Sorry, I missed the preference for Spanish. Here is the Spanish translation:
<url: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/index.es.html>


--
Alan Johnson

thank you alan and toby for your quick and very useful answers.
I choose subversion. I'm sure

Now I have another question:
Subversion always requires a server like Apache? Is there any
possibility that all of control version system be in local machine or
in a portable hard disk?

I make that question because I dont have a server. If it's necessary,
is there any kind of free server which gives that kind of services?

thanks a lot again

toby wrote:

+1. And note that its community has created Win32 Desktop extensions for it,
so you can learn some aspects of it just by clicking. (I dunno about a
Spanish locale for them!

--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!

ruherflo@gmail.com wrote:
If you look at the book (starting from the reference that Alan gave:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/index.es.html), go to section 6 and then
look at the svnserve section. That's a stand-alone server that manages
your repository (or repositories).

Phil.

ruherflo@gmail.com writes:

You should use the software that the people you are collaborating
with are also using. If you're using a free software
collaboration site such as sourceforge or savannah, that's
probably CVS.
--
"A computer is a state machine.
Threads are for people who cant [sic] program state machines."
--Alan Cox

ruherflo@gmail.com wrote:
In this particular case it doesn't matter too much, but in general
on usenet you should realize that readers may very well not have
convenient access to previous articles in a thread. That means
that your reply articles should include adequate context, so that
they stand by themselves. Google is NOT usenet, it is only a very
poor interface to the real usenet system. To include proper
context when using google, see my sig. below. Please be sure to
read the referenced URLs.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

ruherflo@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. Use svnadmin to create a repository. For example:
svnadmin create /home/username/reponame

Then you can access it use a "file" URL. Example:
svn checkout file:///home/username/reponame

Despite only using it locally, I suggest the first thing you do after
creating a new repository is to find the file svnserve.conf (located in
the conf directory of your repository) and add the following under the
[General] section (can mostly be done just by uncommenting stuff already
there):
anon-access = none
auth-access = write
password-db = passwd

Then open the passwd file in the same directory and set up a username =
password pair for yourself. This way, if you ever do decide to set up a
server, there is no chance of accidentally exposing your repository.

--
Alan Johnson

ruherflo@gmail.com wrote:
I'll go against the general trend here an recommend CVS.
See http://www.nongnu.org/cvs/
And TortoiseCVS:
http://www.tortoisecvs.org/
Tortoise CVS is a very good interface into CVS.

Subversion is a newer system I haven't used it yet. But it works by
storing the versioning information in a database. I don't like this
approach very much, because recovering corrupted databases can be very
difficult.

After you've learnt CVS. You may want to try one of the newer version
control systems that have more features.
There are a great many options, see:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ntrol_software

Rob Thorpe wrote:
Bad idea. I've used both. Subversion is what it claims to be: A
compelling replacement. CVS feels very clunky after experience with
Svn, and has some very definite disadvantages, which are outlined on
the Subversion home page.

Your comment does not bear the weight of first-hand experience. That's
no longer the case. Subversion's FSFS repository format does not suffer
from this drawback. I've used it heavily in production with
multi-gigabyte repositories with no issues whatsoever. In fact, I never
saw repository corruption with BDB either, but I stopped using the BDB
repositories a while ago due to occasional locking problems.

toby wrote:
I used /usr/bin/dump on SunOS to dump filesystems on hundreds of machines
in a production environment and never saw a problem for several years.
Then day I tried to restore something, and /usr/bin/restore crashed.
It had always worked fine before that, but that did not mean it could
not fail.

For what it's worth, I will probably switch to subversion myself at
some point, but the early versions that introduced library dependency
hell were not very encouraging. Sure, they've improved since then, but
at the inception, they bragged a lot about how they were reinventing
cvs to be cleaner and better, but they totally failed to consider a
major issue (the dependencies). They later fixed that, but it still
shows that maybe they were not aware of all the issues that might be
relevant.

I'm not saying subversion isn't good software, by the way. I'm just
saying I don't fault someone for being conservative when it comes to
something as fundamental as source code control -- something that's
going to hold all your important data. I'm conservative with
filesystems as well, for what it's worth.

- Logan

toby wrote:
I'm currently sitting next to a bunch of programmers who all use
Microsoft Visual Sourcesafe. They've been using it for years and tell
me they have never had any problems with it. That doesn't mean though
that it is not possible to have problems. In fact it's well known that
a VSS library database will become corrupt if a machine goes down while
writing into it - though it is possible now to solve the problem.

There are also other aspects of Subversion I'm rather suspicious of:
* It's absolutely huge. CVS is about 90Klines of code which is very
long. Subversion though, once it's various components are examined is
well into the 100s of thousands. Compare that to Torvald's Git/Cogito
system for example, which is a bit simpler, but much, much shorter.
* It has two back ends. My problem is: which is the most reliable? A
lot of people seem to be using FSFS rather than BDB, but FSFS is much
newer code. Also, which do I use, the direct server or through Apache.
The fact there are these choices splits the experience being built up
by users in two, so relatively few people are testing each possible
combination. Making it more likely serious bugs are still present in
some combinations.

I'm not saying CVS is good, as someone once said "CVS is an horrific
train-wreck of an application but compared to VSS it's a triumph of
software engineering." But at least I know how to intervene and adjust
a CVS repository, and I have that freedom.

I can well believe that Subversion does not have any problems in this
regard. But I'm not willing to bet on it at this stage.

Rob Thorpe wrote:
I think you can safely assume that the chances of subversion being
bugfree are considerably higher than the equivalent for
Sourcesafe. There have been many horror stories about Sourcesafe.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

"Rob Thorpe" <robert.thorpe@antenova.com> wrote in message
news:1148402988.384027.178830@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
Depends on the implmentation. (I see elsewhere you reference VSS - not
a good thing to judge other, non-broken, source control systems by.)

We've been using a system that stores information in a database much
like subversion (Perforce) for about six years now and never had a
problem. (The hardware it runs on - various AIX machines - have
broken down a couple of times but that hasn't fazed it thanks to
it's robustness and a raid array.)

On the other hand, every couple of months a user has to have their
local system reimaged (IT doesn't do recovery) and would have lost
a lot more work if the state of their source wasn't stored on a
central system. (They do lose their immediate changes, but we can
at least tell them what files they were editing and other details.)

-Wm