I have used ant tasks (since 2002) and integrated Accurev with CruiseControl without any problems. Moving stuff is easier with Accurev than with any other SCM I ever

used (identity is not pathname based). I find the streams the best thing for Agile - continuous code integration is a snap! – Chris Boran Oct 10 '08 at 2:14

My current client uses Accurev for SCM and after a few projects using a DVCS like Git or Mercurial, I can honestly say that using Accurev is about as enjoyable as

closing your face in a car door.

The GUI for Mac and Linux is god awful slow. You can forget using the refactoring support in your IntelliJ or NetBeans IDE, if you use Accurev...that is unless you

are going to write your own plugin.

Oh yea...let's not forget about this little chestnut ==> evil twin.

On a positive note, it could be worse...it could be Clearcase.

+1 oh yeah, the evil twins. – Justicle Mar 23 '11 at 23:54

+1 for the humour – Barry Jun 11 '12 at 15:20

+1 for the evil twins : just wait until someone creates a directory called "foo" while someone else creates one called "FOO", and Accurev complains AFTER it has

allowed it to happen, and it has subsequently allowed files to be checked in under both, that it's not allowed. Now try unraveling that mess. – Tim Aug 21 '12 at

We've been using AccuRev for a few years now. It's a serious improvement over our last tool (Razor) and while I'd recommend it for others- it does have a few

drawbacks.

Benefits:

The stream based interface is quite intuitive. I make snapshots every second week and have a number of ongoing development streams branching off the snapshot. Moving changes between stream is really easy, just select the change, send it to the "change palette" and select the destination stream. It guides you through all

the files that need to be merged. The command-line utilities are great. We've managed to script most of our release generation around it. Integrations for Visual Studio, Bugzilla, etc... Drawbacks:

As monjardin pointed out, the client GUI can be slow. I use the windows version for all my history/stream searching since it's much faster than the X11 one. Of

course, the GUI's written in Java so performance obviously wasn't their first concern. It's starting to get slow for really large databases (I'm talking over 300,000 LOC), although they've apparently addressed it in today's release of 4.7. We opted to go with the cheaper license and not get the change packages feature (I can't see them working that well anyways, as the entire idea of promoting

individual changes flies in the face of continuous integration). So far it hasn't hurt us.

Overall, for the price you pay it's a nice tool. We evaluated ClearCase, MKS, Spectrum and Subversion during our trial period. Subversion may have been a good

choice, but it was still pretty green when we were evaluating. I've never heard of Plastic before, but I regret not evaluating Perforce.

Also, I understand that the engineers over at Trolltech (makers of Qt) have recently switched to git. I'd be interested in checking that out as well.

One of the best days I've ever had at my current job is they day we ditched Accurev and moved to Subversion. Accurev uses overly complicated concepts. Like one of

the commenters above, after working with it for years, I still didn't understand the different states that artifacts could be in. It seems that Accurev's greatest

asset is its whitepapers and stream visualization, both of which are v appealing to management but does nothing for developers. I use Subversion, Mercurial and Git

for various projects and would recommend these tools over any other.

Recommending Subversion and Git in the same sentence is ironic :) – Benjol Apr 8 '10 at 8:34

I've been a long time Accurev user, and have recently moved to a job where I'm using Perforce. I gotta tell you, I wish I had Accurev back. I do agree - the UI is

slow and has problems.

However there are some truly AWESOME visualization tools in there. I can't believe that anyone would look at the version history browser and not fall in love! The

stream browser is a great simple tool to understand what is going on in your development organization.

Also, dirt simple to administer. Accurev is actually one of my favourite tools.

Chris Boran

Another big thumbs down for Accurev. Every simple operation seems to become so horribly complex - cryptic error messages send you scattering to manual, only finding

theoretical explanations about concepts that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

UI is so slow and unresponsive it makes you want to gouge your eyes out.

Stay away.

Benjol

Put me in the anti-Accurev camp. We moved to it recently, and it's been horrible. We have a number of quite large projects, and Accurev seems to be almost unusable

for the quantity of files we have. Over a VPN, forget it. It takes forever to update, the cross-stream management doesn't work in any intuitive way, the UI is

complex and slow.

Additionally, support for it in a number of tools we use is either non-existent or poorly implemented.

Add the various bugs that keep popping up, and I'd say we wasted a great deal of money for something that is done much better by open-source software, such as

Subversion. We still use CVS for some projects, and even it is so much better for normal operations and workflow that I'd pick it over Accurev.

Two months later, has your opinion changed at all? – Benjol May 12 '10 at 8:36 1
You raise a few good points but a statement that CVS (or subversion for that matter) is better than AccuRev is plain ridiculous :-) Btw. "large" is really a crappy

quantity to criticize anything. Since you wrote your answer in Feb 2010 I am also very curious what "horrible" bugs you encountered - seems to run well enough for

us. – Martin Ba Dec 14 '10 at 15:01

Martin, we've encountered problems ranging from usability, to incorrect data being reported, to actually tracking source code changes incorrectly. That includes an

issue just today that broke our build because a moved file was still being identified at the old location as well as the new. CVS isn't as featureful, but at least

is isn't buggy. I'm not a huge fan of Subversion, but at least it's better. (BTW, in our company, large is 100's of thousands of files and millions of lines of code)

– Bob Bell Jan 29 at 23:37

Accurev has some great concepts; but suffers from: 1) many many inconsistencies in the command-line interface. 2) many bugs and nuisances in the application/interface. E.g. their time-safe property is not actually time-safe at all because of several bugs that affect snapshots

and pass-through streams. 3) major bugs in critically important features... As above; time-safe bugs; bugs in merging by issues. 3) they are a year behind where they should be, because they

wasted a whole year on trying to move their backend to a database - this will be version 5 which may never see the light of day. 4) The marketing is excellent; but the product does not live up to the marketing hype 5) every release has had major critical bugs that has required them to release immediate hotfixes. This has been a major disruption for us. And these aren't minor

bugs. 6) doesn't scale well... takes up a huge amount of disk space and gets slower over time

Having said all that; it's still a good product; but if I were to do it all again I'd consider git instead.

Bob

At a previous employer we reviewed Accurev and Plastic SCM. At the end of the day, I was not impressed with Accurev's interface, or the so-called "streams". We went

with Plastic, and nobody complained.

@Jonathan The streams are interesting,but I don't see how any version control can magically avoid collisions when two people touch the same code in the same file.

Accurev's model was intriguing, but at the end of the day, nice clean branching and merging with a drop dead easy interface made Plastic the choice for us. Plastic's

timeline view (I forget the actual name), showing the branch/merge/check-in history made it very simple to review the history of the project from a bird's eye view.

@Steveth

The Interface is lousy...However the streams model is very innovative.

Being able to create a stream for a new project off the trunk stream, and having 5 developers working on it, and not having any form of merge collisions when we

merge that stream back into the main trunk is unheard of, yet it works well in Accurev.

IMO, the Accurev's streams are nothing conceptually different from conventional branches, except for the really good workflow of using them, which is dictated by the

documentation, community, and silently assumed by UI. You could actually arrange exactly the same continuous integration workflow in any other branching SCM; nothing

in Accurev actually forces developers to not deviate from it. – ulidtko May 23 '12 at 16:53 up vote 4 down vote Well, all I can say is that I completely agree. The back-end is great but the UI sucks. The stream functionality is great because it makes merging no brainier as all

changes from parent streams are automatically propagated to all children. I wrote a post about Accurev UI that explains most of the shortcomings I've come across for

last 2 years.

@Pawel, have there been any significant improvements in the almost-two years since you wrote your post? – Benjol Apr 8 '10 at 8:36

I stopped using AccuRev at the end of 2008. I don't know what the current state of it is. – Pawel Pabich Apr 8 '10 at 11:27 up vote 4 down vote It's anti Agile tool, because:

Main idea of Accurev is to use different streams for different teams, so, changes made by team1 won't affect team2.

Sounds good, but in a real world we all know that at the end we'll merge code from both teams and believe me it's nightmare in Accurev. More changes your teams will

do in their streams - more time everybody will spend on merging at the end.

It's the same if every team will do their development in separate branch using SVN and trying to merge everything after 1 month of development....Basically Accurev

creates late merge price and you gonna pay this price for ever if you'll choose Accurev for more than 1 team.

In order to fix problem created by 1 point peoples decide to refuse from cross functional teams in favor of functional. They even provide another argument to support

this idea : "knowledge expertise" principle.

In other words when you don't have cross functional teams (and Agile as well) it's easier to have experts for particular part of the system, so they will do better

code review and will act as "information/design/implementation experts".

All of us knows that information expert is antipattern not only in Agile, since it's better to spread expertise in order to avoid knowledge bottlenecks in

organization.

I used AccuRev at a previous job and didn't have any problems with it, but I very much prefer Subversion (even without comparing the price difference). I remember

the client GUI being pretty slow too. Also, I do recall that the GUI just called their command-line utilities to interface with the repository. So, it probably won't

be that hard to use those interfaces for your DIY tools.

Accurev is simply the worst tool I have ever used.

Subversion is very good, esp if you are migrating from cvs.

After 4 months, my very negative opinion hasn't changed at all. While Accurev has some very nice concepts, the slowness and complexity far outweigh the advantages,

at least for us. Aside from the usual complaints about the GUI and the obscurity of a number of features, one of the absolutely most annoying faults is how many

hoops you have to jump through just to update a workspace, made much worse by the inability to update only one directory (or directory tree).

A typical update consists of waiting a loooong time to be told you have overlaps. Of course, you aren't told what the overlaps are. So, you have to do an overlap

search, wait another loooong time, resolve the overlaps, do another update, wait a looooong time, and hope it worked this time.

Some of our remote developers update as infrequently as possible because the update time over VPN is absurd. Granted, we have an enormous number of source files

across a number of products, and if we reorganized everything we could probably improve performance.

However, we hired Accurev (at a significant cost) to come in and tell us how to set everything up. Still sucks. Aside from that, we really shouldn't have to

reorganize the way we work with our sources to suit a source-code-control system. It's a tool, not a business model.

Lastly, we've been trying out an Accurev plugin for IntelliJ, written by Accurev. It works just as poorly as the rest, and, while Accurev has been very responsive

about fixing the plugin, we aren't their QA group, nor did we sign up to be an alpha test site (yes, it's that buggy). We finally gave up and wrote our own plugin

that actually works.

Some technical details to set your opinions into perspective would be nice. Accurev has its faults, but I really can't see how it's so slow or so buggy or so complex

as you imply. Are you using accurev over a modem dial-up connection or what? – Martin Ba Dec 14 '10 at 15:44

We've been using AccuRev in my company for a while, and I've come to the conclusion that it's a very immature SCM. I've personally found a number of bugs in it. Not

just bugs from "this option doesn't work" or "this isn't user-friendly", but bugs at the level of tracking source code incorrectly, including such a bug today

involve moving files and still tracking the old location under the same element ID. I would recommend anyone to use a different SCM. – Bob Bell Jan 29 at 23:32

I've been the SVN and Accurev administrator for a time. Accurev took a long time to grow on me - about six months, but I like it now for a corporate enterprise

environment. Here's a few things to consider.

Pros:

Personal code history The code changes are kept on the server when the users performs a keep. The keep is personal to the user and doesn't distribute to other users until a promote

command is issued. The code performed by a keep is kept on the server and available even if the user performs a revert operation. In most cases, promoting the code to higher streams for distribution is fairly simple. Administration is fairly simple Installation works well Performance is much improved on version 5.3 which changed the backend to a PostGres database The CLI is rich and extensive Cons:

A real clunky user interface Resolving overlaps can be complex, just like conflicts in SVN However, like any complex tool, your appreciation will increase the more you understand and know about it.

The sort answer: Use the latest SVN server and SmartSVN (the community edition is free) as a client. You will not pay anything and you can get everything you need.

The gory details: BTW the feature of imposing the change management rules during checking is trivial to write as a SVN hook. We did it in a couple of hours, in one

hundred lines (or thereabout) of code - it works wonderfully and never broke. It integrates SVN with Bugzilla and imposes rules such as:

In order to commit you have to enter a message In order to commit you must have entered a Bugzilla ID that is in a "Valid" commit state. ... and so on, you can build your own rules to your heart's content Accurev seems to be marketware to me ... lousy GUI client ... very slow (we had to upgrade the HW to make it actually work effectively), and of course ... you have

to pay for it! Ah yes, if you do use it, I hope that you do not have to replicate your server between some place in the US and some place in India :)

Perforce is more robust but it is not very easy to administer. In any case, it is a superior product in comparison to Accurev.

VSS and stuff like that should not even be considered as "version control" systems when it comes to writing professional software (typically, enterprise software) in

the 21st century. That's like writing your reports on a typewriter ;-)

If you know what you are doing (with your software) then SVN will be a robust and efficient solution for you. With (at least) two robust and efficient revision

control systems in existence today (SVN/GIT) there is very little room to justify working with a proprietary solution; some reasons could be "inertia": you have it,

you don't care paying for it, and you didn't have any major issues -- in other words, it works for you.

I use SVN everywhere, when it didn't exist I was using CVS, and before that ... no I am not going to tell you how old I am ;-)

Hope this helped ...

Ciao.

Note: I am an AccuRev user and I like it very much. I have already upvoted a few answers here, and would like to add:

I've just recently stumbled over this "review" of AccuRev in the book Continuous Delivery by Jez Humble and David Farley:

[Chapter 14, p 385]

Commercial Version Control Systems

(...) the only commercial VCSs that we are able to wholeheartedly recommend are:

(...) AccuRev. Offers ClearCase-like ability to do stream-based development without the crippling administrative overhead and poor performance associated with ClearCase. (...) To which I might add that I never have used ClearCase, but I am the AccuRev admin around here, and it is indeed very little work to administer. (WRT performance,

this question might give more insight.)

We use AccuRev for 4 years already. I hate it very much, mostly because of its horrible GUI. Several years ago AccuRev sent a survey for their clients to fill and at

the end of the survey there was a field with suggestions. I started collecting things which annoy me the most, and below you'll find what I have now. Unfortunately,

it's full of AccuRev terminology, but I think you'll get the idea anyway.

Accurev GUI possible improvements Working with history

When examining history, a developer most often wants to see diff to previous transaction/version. This should be as accessible as a double click. For example

double-clicking on file in transaction log could open diff to previous version. Double-clicking on a file in Default Group filter could open diff to backed, double-

clicking on a file in Modified search could open diff to most recent. That would save tons of time.

Common experience is that developers rarely open files for editing from within AccuRev. Rather they very often diff files, then revert or promote changes. So double

click should not open files for editing, it should diff them instead. This may be an option in preferences, so different people may decide whether they want double

click to diff files or open files.

It should be possible to select two transactions in stream or workspace history and perform a file diff between them.

Overlaps merging

Merging overlaps in a stream requires performing "Deep Overlap" search in a workspace that takes much more time than to search overlaps in specific stream. Then it

is needed to sort overlaps by overlap stream and merge only those from specific stream. There should be more convenient way to perform merging overlaps in stream.

For example ability to limit deep overlap search by specific stream and do not show overlaps in parent streams. Limiting Deep Overlap search by timelocked stream is

not very useful if you are several streams under this timelocked stream or there is no timelock on parents at all.

Now there is a simplified way that involves creating change palettes, but it is still not convenient. Merge menu item should be available at stream level if there is

a workspace under that stream that may be used for overlaps merge.

Annotate tool

Annotate tool is very awkward:

unable to search for text; using slider at the top to browse different version resets position in the file that is VERY annoying for large files; should be able to open history at the specific transaction directly from annotate tool. Now developer needs to remember transaction# and search for it in stream

history (also need to search for the stream where transaction was made). Stream Favorites

Context menu item "Add to stream filter" was removed when new stream favorites were introduced. It should be possible to right click on stream and add it to one of

the stream favorites (2nd level context menu, or dialog may pop up). Now it is very annoying to edit stream favorites, particularly when you need to have 2 similar

sets of streams.

Stream browser

It should be easy to copy stream name to clipboard. Now you need to open "Change stream" dialog for that. Ctrl+C in stream browser could copy the name of selected

stream to clipboard. There is no way to copy stream name from stream view. Right click on tab could copy stream name in clipboard, or show context menu with "copy

stream name to clipboard" item in it.

Diff and merge tool

Shows only the first different character in line, not the whole line difference, does not highlight syntax. Luckily, diff tool may be easily switched to external

tool, so this is minor.

Other suggestions

Option in preferences to enable Multiple columns sort mode by default. It would be nice to save not only the latest keep/promote log, but at least 5-10 older ones. File extension column in stream or workspace view with ability to sort on it would be great. Reordering tabs would be nice. Very small font in keep/promote/lock message under Windows, it's unreadable. Increase the font size or allow user to change it. Implement more convenient way to locally ignore files, environment variable is not very useful (user may want to ignore different sets of files in different

streams/depots). For the last 2 years AccuRev added 2 things from this list (I removed them as they are already implemented):

Hardcoded (can't be customized) keyboard shortcuts for most actions Made it possible to call diff for several files from transaction at once (before that one should have to right click on every file and call "Diff to previous

version" from context menu. Besides GUI there are fundamental flaws in AccuRev in the whole:

Difficult to update backwards

You can't easily update backwards. There is accurev update -t command, but if you updated to transaction 100, you can't update to transaction 95

using accurev update -t 95. In order to do that you need to set up time lock on your backed stream (which will introduce transaction in AccuRev) and update your

workspace.

Deep Overlaps

When you update you may happen to have invalid state of sources without any notice. This is because Overlaps feature. Overlap is basically a conflict (when file is

changed by both you and them). If you have overlap in your workspace, you'll need to merge it before you are allowed to update. But if you have overlap in the

stream, under which you have your workspace, you won't have any notice about that, but overlapped file won't be updated in your workspace. Consider the following

stream structure

[Depot Root] <- [Team stream] <- [Your stream] <- [Your workspace] Let's say you changed foo.cpp and promoted it to [Your stream]. After that someone from your team changed both foo.h and foo.cpp, let's say added method to the class

Foo, and promoted the files to [Team stream]. After you update your workspace, you'll get new version of foo.h (because you didn't change it), but you won't get

foo.cpp because it's overlapped in [Your stream]. So, your update will go clean, but linker will complain about unresolved symbol Foo::NewMethod if you try to build

after that.

My company ha been using Accurev since early 2010, coming from StarTeam before that and CVS in the very distant past. I haven't used CVS (having been on a different

team at the time) so I have no comparisons there, and I never bothered to learn StarTeam too intimately.

Since then I've also played with both the CLI and Tortoise versions of SVN, Git, and Mercurial (Hg) in my free time. I plan on giving Git a more thorough go at some

point, but I found Hg to be much more intuitive and easy (at least under Windows). Anyway, like I said management saddled us with Accurev and after spending time to

get fairly well acquainted with it (GUI and CLI both) as a developer... I absolutely hate it.

Someone earlier in the thread summed it up as software written by devs that had read about SCM in a book but never used it... I agree whole-heartedly but you also

get the feeling that they had the same level of experience with GUIs, efficient processing, etc. (In fact, I see that Accurev has a new product called "Kando" based

on Git...sounds like they've finally realized how bad their model is. But to quote a coworker "I wouldn't trust anything written by the same team at this point"... I

have to wonder if it is a coincidence that there is a baby-wipe product named "Kandoo"...)

Ok, obviously I don't care for the product. If you've spent the time to read this thread, then obviously there are quite a few folks with similar views on it. But I

wanted to share some of my own gripes that I've had with it over the last few years as well -- btw if it helps anyone, I think we were using v4.7 previously and have

been on v5.3 (?) now for quite some time.

My biggest beef with Accurev is how horribly slow and inefficient it is. Notice I didn't use the word GUI -- I've tried both GUI and CLI-- the slow parts are on the

server, so you're screwed either way. It seems like I see one of those damn modal dialog/status bars at every turn... I switch tabs -- bam!: processing, please wait.

I reparent a stream -- oh wait just another minute. For "Updates" I expect it to be a little slow (although sometimes it gets annoying when it screams "Overlap" [aka

a conflict] at me when I happen to have a file with IDENTICAL content to what it's pushing down). I change directories browsing to a path... processing, processing,

"oh you want to go down one more sub-folder"... let me process that some more. You get the idea.

Is that my only beef? Hell no.

1) For the merge tool, I've had the "ignore white space" option checked for years, but I can only ever recall it working ONE time (for example, say we're talking

about about comparing say 2 versions of a JSP where I converted spaces to tabs or trimmed some trailing white space or something). Why is this an issue? Because it

becomes pure torture for every other developer that looks in the history and wants to see what REALLY changed. If they can't get implement this correctly, don't put

the F***ING option there. (Note:using WinMerge as an external compare tool, with appropriate settings works fine)

2) I've had instances where checking a file into one stream and then needing to put an IDENTICAL copy of that same file into another stream (using the same issues #)

causes it to throw a temper tantrum. If I use the wrong issue #, it goes in with no problem. This is probably an isolated case (and maybe due to other poor process

decisions my company saddles us with) but I thought I'd mention it for completeness.

3) The history? All stored on the server. Translation: If you enjoyed waiting for it to switch tabs, create/reparent a workspace, and update then you're in for more

of the same when you want to view history.

4) The way it's exclusionary rules are done is not only terrible but also pathetic. Under Windows, you actually have to create an environment variable where you can

create some exclusions to files that you don't want to show up. IT DOES NOT SUPPORT REGEX. I've seen several other SCMs that offer much better approaches (I'm fond

of the the ignore files used in Hg. I think there is something similar in Git too) -- not only are both regex and glob patterns supported, but defining this in a

FILE is more system-friendly and much easier to edit that putting it into an Environment variable. Not only that, but it seems that the ignore filters are iffy at

best. The way our projects are defined have the build folder under the project folder (which is source controlled) and trying to exclude all folders under the the

build folder doesnt seem to work -- most of them still show up in my "External" filter even after setting up rules.

5) It's check-in process (a "Promote") also seems to run with the theme of slow and inefficient. We use an external ticket system (not AccuWork... our ticketing

system has its flaws but after using AccuRev, I can't image that product to be much better). Anyway, when we say "Promote [this file]", first it pops up with another

modal dialog (after the required waiting, while it does more stat processing), then it presents a list of ALL tickets it has pulled (there are a lot...too many to

reliably find anything). Next, we must enter our ticket number from the other system, and wait some more while it takes forever to find a match (I thought it already

pulled the list...geez). Finally, it will display the matches, then we pick one and tell it to promote using that ticket number. After yet some more waiting, we're

finally done.

I could go on but I'll stop there.... this post is getting too long. Instead, let me sum up Accurev in my own way: After having to wait for all these slow annoying

"Stat processing", etc dialogs during an issue where we were trying to quickly get a fix out, I came up with a new slogan for them: "AccuRev: when seconds count,

your fix is only minutes away".

Since management won't get rid of Accurev (I know they won't go for anything without Enterprise support but I've begged for them to consider anything else:

SmartGit...Kiln...Perforce...), I have been using TortoiseHg to locally version control my files (in addition to Accurev). It is a little more work. But for those

saddled with Accurev, it makes life so much easier. You get: better diff management -- MUCH MUCH easier to see and review code changes after an "accurev update", the

ability to view some history without waiting 10 years for the server, ability to share directly between you and another dev (assuming they also install it), ability

to revert/restore your changes if you accidentally wipe something out while trying to get clear of Accurev's merge hell ("Overlapped" files), and even more if you

can get the rest of your team using it.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, during a conversion with our build engineers I was told that while Accurev has a Java API that you can develop for, it apparently requires

purchasing some sort of additional licensing. I can't confirm this since a) I can't find pricing anywhere on Accurev's website* and b) I doubt like hell they'd tell

me at work...

*Kinda weird considering I can find some sort of rough pricing for Perforce, Kiln, StarTeam and SmartGit quite easily. I usually get a sketchy feeling when some

product won't list any sort of price up front, guess it shouldn't surprise me too much that Accurev falls into that category...

I've just come across this discussion and thought I would share our experiences with AccuRev.

We have been using the Dimensions SCM from Serena for around 8 years. Two years ago we had a major problem integrating our India based Development team with our UK

Dev team. It was clear that we were not going to meet our needs with the current system and hence we set about evaluating a number of options. I discuss all of this

in this article How We Integrated Our Offshore Dev Team.

Our experience of using AccuRev has so far been very positive.

It is easy to setup and administer. Users are able to get going very very quickly (especially important for the India dev team) We've never had a problem with speed (in fact this is one of the main plus points for us) The replication works like a dream I do agree that the UI can be a bit clunky (especially the Unix client). I am hoping that it will be better in the latest version when we update to that next month. All in all I would say that this was one of the best decisions and purchases we have made.

compared to serena, anything is good... – Tim Jun 29 '10 at 15:39

I have used Accurev for one year. I don't like it. Here are some problems I encountered:

1. Its GUI is terrible: it's so slow that each time I switch between tabs (streams and workspaces) or perform some actions I have to wait for several seconds. It

sometimes gave you a confusing error message that could not help find what's wrong.

1. It has so many concepts that you have to spend much time learning Accurev itself.

2. I once encountered such a problem: I have a version controlled file modified by our build process. Later my teammate moved that file to other location in his

workspace and promoted the change. When I run "accurev update" it simply told me "some file has been moved" and everything looked normal. But actually the command

stopped at the moved file and no longer updated other files. It's very confusing - your update command did not update the worksapce but you have no idea about it.

The only outputed message "some file has been moved" looked just like other verbose output. It did not tell me my update failed or aborted or something else.

Before that I used SVN and ClearCase. SVN is a great tool, simple and easy to use. And I did not have so many complaints about ClearCase. Accurev is really

frustrating...

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19201/accurev-scm

Accurev 真的那么差么？