Apache Subversion vs. IBM DevOps Code ClearCase

Subversion solves our software versioning problem by providing tools for conflict resolution when doing collaborative work on the same files and projects. We use it with TortoiseSVN and it works great for some of our projects with smaller teams. However, we have a need to make code reviews more and it is a little more difficult to do that in SVN, compared to Bitbucket and Git.

Incentivized

Rational ClearCase is well suited for a company where development is done from one single location and there are a lot of dependent projects, systems or modules that need to be version controlled. Especially good for a company that creates customized software for clients. Well suited for disciplined development environments. Waterfall methodology mentality seems a better fit for ClearCase than Agile.

ClearCase is not well suited for companies that have development geographically distributed and using Agile Methodologies.

Incentivized

• Track and control concurrent versions of the same files.
• Has good support from many different software, including visualization, DevOps toolchain.
• Well documented and understood by developers as it has been around for a long time.

Incentivized

• Rational ClearCase is excellent for handling versioning and branching. No other tool I've used has the depth that ClearCase has when it comes to handling complex branching scenarios and identifying where certain versions of particular files are within a particular configuration.
• Rational ClearCase handles parallel development of many dependent applications really well.
• The use of ClearCase Views to switch between projects and configurations is extremely convenient as opposed to the local workstation model of the competitors.

Incentivized

• Refactoring the layout of a respoitory--or a part of a repository--can be a bit painful, especially for users with workspaces associated with the affected part of the repository. Not sure what could be done to make that better, but it would be nice if something was possible.
• Folks coming from Git can have problems using Subversion. Again, not sure anything can (or should) be done to address that, but it is occasionally an issue.

Incentivized

• Extremely buggy.
• Sometimes the repository gets locked for no reason.
• Slow.

Incentivized

While there are interesting alternatives, such a GIT, Subversion has been a breath of fresh air compared to its predecessors like CVS or Microsoft Source Safe (now called Team Foundation Server). Its ease of use and high adoption rate is going to keep me using this product for years to come.

After Microsoft Visual SourceSafe was discontinued, we chose Subversion and it was a great choice. We were able to migrate to Apache Subversion very quickly and easily and benefited immediately from its non-locking workflow (SourceSafe required users to "lock" the file when editing to prevent editing conflicts from other users, whereas Subversion allows multiple users to edit the same file simultaneously and then merge conflicts later.)

While we still use Apache Subversion for our legacy projects, we've migrated to Git and GitHub for our new projects as that is the new "cool kid" and it provides some benefits such as distributed and offline development. But Git is more complex than Apache Subversion and not as easy to learn.

Incentivized

GIT Stash is superior to IBM Rational ClearCase in many ways. Bundled with SourceTree, the UI is far more modernized and updated than IBM Rational ClearCase. Being able to visually see the individual branches that are created within the repository is much more straightforward than the versioning method of ClearCase. GIT also seems to be a lot faster when it comes to checking in/out code and creating the repository.

Incentivized

• It allowed us to deliver the right files to our customer without "clobbering" previous releases, making for a far more satisfied customer.
• It allowed our developers to work on two releases in parallel (plus an occasional third, for emergency fixes).
• With some simple hooks, it allowed us to set up a system where code was was automatically deployed to test servers as soon as developers committed it, making testing easier. This was made easier by virtue of being a ColdFusion project, which requires no compilation. However, that is possible for compiled code with a continuous integration system like Jenkins.

Incentivized

• Managed code versioning for many years.
• Only one person can edit code at a time - slows processing down.
• IBM is an expensive product to support.

Incentivized