It's like source control written by developers who have read about it in aīook, but have never actually used it before.īasic concepts are missing or extremely complicated. I have used AccuRev for nine months and I anxiously await the day I use it no more. We're talking about several hours just to get a recently updated workspace to the point where I can put the right notches in the stream history. The worst part? All of these files were on a workspace on the same computer. Why? Because some other change has come up stranded and requires some sort of catastrophic resync scan for elements. Why am I here, griping about Accurev? Because my other machine has taken a full four hours to try to update 10MB of files over VPN.
I went to an "Advanced Accurev topics" talk, and the first tidbit was a large shell command for clearing out Accurev's client-side caching/sync mechanism to correct for when Accurev updates silently fail to pull down files that should be updated.Ī Timestamp Optimization checkbox? Deep overlaps? Modal dialogs with only one background process? (That would be okay if those processes were anything other than glacial.) Cascading graphs of selectively configured streams put in place just to be able to pull off components and cross-merging? Updates aren't actually atomic without time-locking?! (honest answer: update again)Įvery time I try and do anything serious in Accurev, I feel like I'm playing Russian Roulette at a table with HAL9000, Skynet, and a Speak & Spell.
For architects, leads, build engineers, or anyone who actually uses source control to slice and dice, Accurev is horrific. 300k lines of code? Try it with millions, with hundreds of developers working on scores of projects.Ĭontinuous integration? Sure, that's something that developers can approximate by doing regular merges in, say, perforce, git, mercurial, or any of the countless other tools that actually gets the work done, but it becomes the choice of the developer as to how to proceed.
0 kommentar(er)
