I've always used Subversion or CVS for version control, which use a 'merge' methodology. One of my friends raves about Perforce and how great it is with its change lists and check-out methodology.
While I'm sure a lot of it comes down to experience & personal preference, I was wondering if any research had been done into which method of version control is more efficient to work in?
EDIT: To clarify, I know both Perforce & SVN allow locking & merging, but SVN 'encourages' a liberal edit & merge method, whereas as I understand it, Perforce encourages a checkout-checkin method.
Best Answer
Honestly I think it depends on the discipline of the developers.
I use Subversion for my personal work and I've used it at a few jobs. What I like about Subversion is I don't have to hunt someone down and ask them why they're working on something and if it would be OK for me to do some work. The problem comes when someone decides to start working on something and doesn't check it in for a while; this can make merging difficult as several changes get made between their check-out and check-in.
I use Perforce right now and for some reason I like SVN better. Perforce definitely gives me a better indication that there's going to be merge conflicts, and even has built-in tools to help me resolve the merges. It has the same problem where if someone makes tons of changes over a long time, the merge will be more difficult.
Basically both models require you to check in changes often. If you make numerous check-ins, then you reduce the likelihood that you'll require a merge. I'm guilty of keeping stuff checked out for too long way too often. Personally I feel like SVN's price tag makes up for anything it lacks compared to Perforce; I haven't found a difference between them yet.