Re:What comes after Git
by happyweasel on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @04:46AM
(#31985875)
> it makes branches cheap and easy.
IMHO branching itself isn't expensive in Subversion, the problems arise when you merge (feature)branches back. If you branch off (for release branches) and then just selectively merge certain commits to that branch only if needed (the info being stored in svn:mergeinfo), I think its not that bad. I prefer branch-by-abstraction and trunk-based dev anyway, so here you go ;)
Re:What comes after Git
by COMMENT___ on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @06:10AM
(#31986373)
Subversion has its branching and merging quirks, but it works and works well in most cases. Most of the usage problems can be solved by sticking to best practices and using up-to-date SVN client versions.
Git is popular because it is free, fast, works well enough, and was popular in some major projects.
Its major advantage for most orgs (those who actually use it in a centralized manner, with a corporate repo that everyone syncs with every day, unlike the Linux kernel team) as compared to Subversion is that it makes branches cheap and easy. The ability to work with history offline is also nice in niche situations, but definitely not the major selling point.
Its major advantage compared to Hg is that it is more popular.