Reputation
Next privilege 125 Rep.
Vote down
Badges
2
Impact
0 people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 3 votes cast
Mar
28
comment Why big companies use Perforce?
At Intel, the really big projects, especially multiple projects using shared code bases, geographically dispersed, used DVCSes like BitKeeper and git. The projects that really made money. Smaller projects, typically software projects used Perforce or something else (SVN, CVS, ...). Perforce evangelists often tried to convert the RTL/DVCS teams - and then were flabbergasted by the requirements and scale. Projects using Perforce often penalize folks working far away from the central server.
Mar
28
comment Why big companies use Perforce?
"Distributed" was the big reason Intel adopted DVCSes like BitKeeper and git. Intel RTL work is split geographically: California/Oregon/Israel/Texas/India/... Networks are great, but unfortunately they still sometimes break, get slow, etc. DVCSes mean that different teams using the same source code base can make progress even when disconnected. Perforce, fundamentally, is a centralized version control system. P4 has features like sandboxes that are semi-distributed, but AFAIK are not all the way there.
Mar
28
comment Why big companies use Perforce?
I just want to add another data point: Intel is a fairly large company. The RTL design database for Intel CPUs is pretty large. For many years Intel's RTL design community was/has been a big supporter of DVCS - amongst other things, Intel was a big paid customer of BitKeeper for years, and more recently was a big user of git. (I left Intel in 2009, so things may have changed.)