News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Distributed Version Control is here to stay, baby by cwp on Thursday March 18, 2010 @06:53PM (#1202765)
It doesn't. Joel is a little bit off base here, in that it makes no difference whether a VCS tracks snapshots or deltas. What does matter is whether it keeps track of merges. If you merge one branch into another, your VCS must record that information, so that future merges can be done correctly. SVN doesn't do this, Git and Mercurial do. (And note that Git stores snapshots, not changes.)

Joel's absolute right about one thing, though. Being able to merge correctly and reliably make a huge difference. It's what makes the distributed part of DVCS possible. Without a central repository, branches happen a lot more often, and merging has to work right. The contortions that teams go through to prevent branches are a thing of the past.

Re:Distributed Version Control is here to stay, baby by philjackson on Thursday March 18, 2010 @07:05PM (#1202802)
Actually, since 1.5, svn does track merges.
Re:Distributed Version Control is here to stay, baby by NickM on Thursday March 18, 2010 @08:03PM (#1202921)
That's correct. However, there are still some significant issues with Subversion's merge tracking. There's an excellent blog post that summarizes these issues here:

http://blogs.open.collab.net/svn/2008/07/subversion-merg.htm...

Re:Distributed Version Control is here to stay, baby by cwp on Thursday March 18, 2010 @07:17PM (#1202825)
CVS then. I haven't used either in years.