Talk:List of version-control software

message: I will erase the cleanup, what exactly neads to be cleaned up right now? Moa3333 13:15, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
So what happened? It's 2013..  78.141.139.10 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Considering that CVSNT started back in 1999, while SVN started in 2004.
(not to mention other cool things about CVSNT.)
thats messed up, haha. ---Fractal3 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CVSNT wasn't in the list. 

message: Should OpenVMS's Files-11 be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.1.42 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Files-11 

message: Article says "Evolution, (available here), simply better SCM and digital asset management" - isn't this a bit point-of-view (the "simply better" part)? Or is it their slogan? Peter S. 09:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above comment.  I see the  extended description for Evolution was removed, and then reinstated.  My opinion is that the current extended description is advertising that does not reflect a neutral point of view and should be reverted. --Seitz 07:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The Evolution description seems to qualify as  spam:"Adding a link that's snazzier than any of the others. If there's a list of products that gives just their names, and you add a product with a short blurb about how great it is, we'll all know why you did it."--Seitz 08:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution description fair? 

message: I think quilt isn't a true version control software but rather tool for managing set of patches. Citing Patchwork Quilt's homepage: "The scripts allow to manage a series of patches by keeping track of the changes each patch makes. Patches can be applied, un-applied, refreshed, etc."
From other point of view, if you chose to list here patch management software, why no mention of other such systems, e.g. dpatch? This is unfair :).
After all I must say that quilt is quite (if not very) mature and functional at the moment. Several Debian projects use quilt (and prefer it over abovementioned dpatch) for keeping Debian's separately from Caesar^H^H^H^H^H^Hupstream's. --Xrgtn 13:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  patch management software 

message: I don't think it's correct to list SCCS as "Proprietary:  Server based":
* SCCS started as proprietary.  But the command set is now part of the UNIX standard, and FreeBSD includes an implementation.
* SCCS simply operates on files, it doesn't have a repository server.
:SCCS is OpenSource sccs.berlios.de. The current version does not include server support but this is going to change with SCCS revision 6.0. --Schily (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCCS categorization 

message: If someone had a mind to it, it would be nice to replace all the external links with internal (possibly red) links followed by the internal link. e.g., replace:
*TLIB - ...
with 
*TLIB  - ...
Maybe there's a tool to make this easier. Basically, all these tools warrant actual articles about them, rather than just a link to the corporate website. Stevage 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal links 

message: I've added MediaWiki to the list, since technically it meets the criteria for being revision control software.  If that was too bold, then let me know and I'll revert or change it. --Bill Clark 12:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it warrants inclusion in a separate category. MediaWiki, to my mind, *is* not revision control software, but it *has* it built in. MediaWiki is not well suited at all to storing revisions of a project written in C, for instance. It's really only good at storing revisions of wiki pages - just like lots of software can store revisions of its own data files. Stevage 05:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki 

message: This list is little more a linkfarm, in violation of WP:EL - Wikipedia is not a directory of software. I am going to remove anything that is not considered notable. By precedent, the best criterion for assessing this is whether the software has an article on Wikipedia. The appropriate way to add software not in the list, assuming it satisfies WP:NOTE and/or WP:SOFTWARE, is to create an article about it. That way, the notability can be established and/or discussed via the usual channels. CiaranG 21:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkfarm 

message: I think there's more than just 2 categories for this.  For example, Visual SourceSafe is a filesystem based system, not traditional client/server.  Client/server would indicate there is some piece of software accepting requests on a server.  VSS just reads and writes to a file on the filesystem, and uses it's own form of file locking.  There have to be others that do this as well (basically, similar to the way RCS/SCCS operated).  I'm not sure what the best way to classify that would be.  Maybe this would work better as a comparison chart. TheMadGerman 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client/Server 

message: Some revision control systems are marked as SCC compliant: RCS, SCCS, Clearcase, Telelogic Synergy. 
It is not explained in the article what ".scc compliant" means. Nor is it evident from the linked page http://filext.com/file-extension/scc. That page doesn't use the word "compliant". The article should either remove the use of ".scc compliant", explain its meaning, or link to a page that does explain it. --HelgeStenstrom 12:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  .SCC compliant, what is that? 

message: The list of SCM tool at List_of_build_automation_software should be scratched and merged into here or something. 78.141.139.10 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of SCM tools 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of version control software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://mail.bitmover.com/pipermail/bitkeeper-users/2003-December/001137.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025054653/http://svn.collab.net:80/repos/svn/trunk/CHANGES to http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/CHANGES
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ClearCase should be under distributed. There are a gazillion companies spread over the world who use ClearCase distributed. A developer has his own branch and only when he checks in it becomes part of the main branch, which on its own can again be part of another branch. Furthermore, the VOBS are distributed, so that any department can work locally while on the background the VOB storages sync between locations. Etc... This means no reliability on one main server such as Github or something to check in or check out to. You can work locally, on top of that locally in your department.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.24 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distributed and ClearCase 

message: Organizing anything by category is foolhardy. What eventually happens is that the categories from one point in time don't apply at a later point in time. Often lines get blurred between categories. Better to tag items with attributes. Today, one dimension is: local, client-server, distributed. Another dimension is: proprietary vs open-source. I think there should be one, flat list and each item tagged with the value for both dimensions. 
Maybe a second list of obsolete guys. That hard separation seems maintainable and useful. Stevebroshar (talk) 15:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizing by attribute