Home > Uncategorized > Bugs Everywhere

Bugs Everywhere

February 22nd, 2009

I’m still not convinced that distributed version control is the future, mostly because I don’t believe in the future: as always, there will be many mixed together, and since my focus is getting novice developers up the learning curve, I’m going to continue to rank initial ease of use over power in the hands of professionals.  That said, Bugs Everywhere looks pretty cool: it’s a distributed bug tracking system that works with Arch, Bazaar, GIT, Mercurial, and RCS. No master copy, just parallel universes that merge occasionally…  Neat.

But once again it prompts me to ask: where are the computer scientists while all this is going on?  None of the systems I’ve mentioned in this post was created by a grad student as a research project, and I’m willing to bet that most profs in CS departments don’t even know they exist. *sigh*

Uncategorized

  1. John
    February 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 | #1

    Some of us adjunct professors do :) Maybe it’s about time that adjunct expertise gets paid / valued more than tenured incompetence.

  2. February 22nd, 2009 at 13:32 | #2

    Hey Greg,

    When are we getting DVCS support in DrProject? DVCS can be really neat.

  3. February 22nd, 2009 at 14:02 | #3

    I would say that synchronization and distributed transactions which are the base for these systems has been researched quite a lot in the last few decades. I would that the software engineers are a bit late on developing these systems.

  4. February 22nd, 2009 at 20:16 | #4

    Not believing in *the* one is the whole point of dvcs–everyone is a parallel future!

    I’ve been using Mercurial heavily since Mozilla switched over from CVS, and I couldn’t go back to a client-server approach. If anything, tools like Mercurial make it easier to get students started because they need no server or admin saying “OK, you can do this” to get started. Pulling and pushing changes to friends’ or group members’ repos is really easy, so a group of students working on a project can all carry it around independently and synch up as need be. Branching and merging is the norm, so you’re not left wanting to kill yourself when large chunks of work need to get pulled in. Also, the fact that you can work 100% offline is incredible.

    I’ll admit that it took me a while to get my head around the concept (I was a heavy CVS/SVN user previously), but once I did, the power of this, even for beginners, is huge. I think the low bar to “Here, try this out with your partners on your laptops” is a huge win for students.

    • February 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 | #5

      Yup, I’ve heard these points before, along with replies along the lines of, “Having a definitive master copy is easier for people to understand,” and, “Making branching and merging the norm makes for more work in the long run.” What I’d really like is for someone to design and conduct an empirical study to get some data to back up either side (or both).

  5. February 25th, 2009 at 12:39 | #6

    Hey, if you could provide access to a set of potential participants (e.g., software engineering course), I’d be happy to work with you on designing and running such a study. ;)

  6. February 26th, 2009 at 02:52 | #7

    I’ll chime in on DVCS with a strong “it depends”. I’ve seen teams where mercurial made things much better and teams where taking subversion away would’ve made things come to a screeching halt.

    As always – it’s not a technical problem – it’s a people problem.

Comments are closed.