Comments on: Subversion… see the light!

By: Ira

Ira — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:38:46 +0000

Well, SVN, Git and Mercurial are very different in style and somewhat in features. there are plusses and minuses to each, but basically both are made for the Bazaar type of Free Software development. If you are looking for a system at an R&D department with a central repository on the LAN and all that, then SVN has still some very nice recipes on the web to use to integrate it with other tools.

if you google it up, I’m sure there are blog posts somewhere comparing all those different CMSs’ pros and cons…

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:30:48 +0000

Okay well obviously I’m heavily misinformed.
Thank you all for the updates and what I SHOULD be using. Maybe I’ll see the light once again with Git.

2003??!?! I just found out like last year… I must be a total newb. Thanks again!

By: Andrew McMillan (karora) 's status on Wednesday, 29-Jul-09 19:23:27 UTC - Identi.ca

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:23:38 +0000

[...] http://joshua.remote-app.com/2009/07/27/subversion/ [...]

By: Ira

Ira — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:54:53 +0000

Umm… Chris is right and so is Mike… SVN is soooo 2003

git and Mercurial are where it’s at right now. SVN was a nice but incomplete replacement of CVS (which is horrible in every respect), but it does not go far enough, and especially doesn’t handle large repositories well, and does not help with diamond merges at all.

By: Larsig

Larsig — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:02:13 +0000

@cdibona writes on Twitter: Reading http://joshua.remote-app.com/2009/07/27/subversion/ and feeling like I’m reading a post from 2003.

https://twitter.com/cdibona/statuses/2912612067

By: Mike Henke

Mike Henke — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:25:25 +0000

You should look @ git for source control. It fixes SVN issues with branching and some other things.