Joel is wrong. Subversion does not equal leeches.

Re:Joel is wrong. Subversion does not equal leeches. by e40 on Thursday March 25, 2010 @03:46PM (#1219312)

I skipped over SVN on my way to Git from CVS, but I've heard the handling of branches in SVN isn't much better than CVS, and there it is absolutely horrible.

So, if you don't use branches it is understandable why you are happy with SVN. If you want branches, you'll need Git something like it (HG).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel is wrong. Subversion does not equal leeches. by iskander on Thursday March 25, 2010 @06:16PM (#1219679)

Yep, we don't use branches. Maybe that's the reason everyone seems to have such (otherwise mystifyingly) negative opinions of SVN.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel is wrong. Subversion does not equal leeches. by neilc on Thursday March 25, 2010 @05:38PM (#1219579)

Branches work just fine in SVN. Merging isn't great, but it is much better with merge tracking in recent versions of SVN.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel is wrong. Subversion does not equal leeches. by rbonvall on Thursday March 25, 2010 @11:06PM (#1220140)

For me it was the other way around. Using git made me want to use branches.

[ Parent | on HN ]