I've had to explain this enough times that it merits its own page. SVK does not factor into these points because I consider it to not be part of subversion.
Useless rant. I mean, it's worth knowing that SVN has some major setbacks, but I think the reason it exists (and is so popular) is that it's that much better than CVS in important ways (specifically, speed and the handling of directories). Now, I would love to see a SVN 2.0 that did things like tagging and branching in a sane way (eliminating the need for the trunk/ branches/ tags/ convention). However, in the meantime I will use the best version control system of the two which are ubiquitously available (and let me give you a hint, it's not CVS).
Quite valid I'd say.
Open source is typically distributed, so it seems idiotic and naive to design a open source repository which is not a distributed version control system.
Comments
daniel replied ago:
Useless rant. I mean, it's worth knowing that SVN has some major setbacks, but I think the reason it exists (and is so popular) is that it's that much better than CVS in important ways (specifically, speed and the handling of directories). Now, I would love to see a SVN 2.0 that did things like tagging and branching in a sane way (eliminating the need for the trunk/ branches/ tags/ convention). However, in the meantime I will use the best version control system of the two which are ubiquitously available (and let me give you a hint, it's not CVS).
evarlast replied ago:
I gave +1, but half of the reasons fit under "SVN WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A DISTRIBUTED VERSION CONTROL SYSTEM".
Better title would be "Consider a Distributed version control system instead of SVN".
in86835 replied ago:
Quite valid I'd say.
Open source is typically distributed, so it seems idiotic and naive to design a open source repository which is not a distributed version control system.
Voters For This Link (12)
Voters Against This Link (15)