Digital.ai (formerly CollabNet) aims to help enterprises and government organizations deliver high-quality software at speed with TeamForge, its application lifecycle management suite. According to the vendor, Digital.ai offers innovative solutions, provides consulting and Agile training services, supports more than 10,000 customers with 6 million users in 100 countries, and has been recognized for 13 consecutive years as SD Times 100 “Best in Show” winner in the…
Digital.ai (formerly XebiaLabs, CollabNet VersionOne, and Arxan)
CollabNet TeamForge is more well-suited for technically knowledgeable users such as developers, systems analysts, QA but not for non-technical users due to the technical data used throughout the tool. CollabNet TeamForge is appropriate for most applications development. In any industry especially suited for high demand software delivery environments.
GIT is good to be used for faster and high availability operations during code release cycle. Git provides a complete replica of the repository on the developer's local system which is why every developer will have complete repository available for quick access on his system and they can merge the specific branches that they have worked on back to the centralized repository. The limitations with GIT are seen when checking in large files.
Digital.ai (formerly XebiaLabs, CollabNet VersionOne, and Arxan)
I would like to see personalization for managing artifacts, that is, allowing the user to customize pages and save personalized settings and then save them as bookmarks.
I would like an improved subversion browser such as a graphical user interface rather than a basic file explorer.
I would like built in features for CollabNet TeamForge integrated with subversion so that i can associate my private code branches and code changes.
Digital.ai (formerly XebiaLabs, CollabNet VersionOne, and Arxan)
No answers on this topic
Open Source
Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
Digital.ai (formerly XebiaLabs, CollabNet VersionOne, and Arxan)
They always answer the phone when we put a call in, any time. They have consistently sent out contractors when needed and were there every step of the way when we switched over from ClearCase to TeamForge years ago. The support is what you really pay for when you buy into TeamForge.
I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
Digital.ai (formerly XebiaLabs, CollabNet VersionOne, and Arxan)
CollabNet TeamForge is superior to Mercury mainly because it has a subversion change management tool integrated with the product. CollabNet TeamForge offers more complexity but with more flexibility for managing and tracking projects. I think CollabNet TeamForge is more comprehensive than either Mercury and JIRA. They're all user friendly tools with short learning curves but CollabNet TeamForge is most efficient in my experience. JIRA was recently adopted for particular applications and is currently being evaluated by various technology teams.
I've used both Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different. The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (behind a VPN, intranet - etc), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it. With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it. Another thing for consideration is that Git tracks content rather than files. Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy. It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked.
Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability.
Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production.
Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases.
