Source code control systems

See, at work I used to use Visual Sourcesafe, because we’re a Microsoft shop. At home, well, nothing. I had to use CVS to get other people’s project code, but I never really got on with it. Then I discovered Subversion. It seems pretty cool. I use it at home, and we use it at work, along with TortoiseSVN, the Windows Explorer extension that makes it easy to manage your svn working copies.
So, the choice was between CVS and SVN at home, and VSS and SVN at work: pretty easy choice.
Then came loads of other source code control systems. Now which should I be using? Arch seems sort of interesting, in a BitKeeper-ish sort of way; BK must be pretty good, because they’re using it to manage the Linux kernel, and so arch should be reasonable if it works on the same principles. Ned is talking about darcs, which operates without a central server, which seems pretty clever (although what do you do if the bloke with the one working copy isn’t onlne? Sounds a bit like it might have the BitTorrent problem, where there’s got to be at least one person with a full dataset online at all times.)
Which do you use? Do you stick with the old standbys like CVS or SVN, or are you using some of these “next-generation” SCC systems? Why, or why not? Are you doing anything interesting with them other than source control, like, say, Roberto’s weblog backend, or something even cooler?

More in the discussion (powered by webmentions)

  • (no mentions, yet.)