"... Quite frankly, I think most open-source SCM's _still_ suck. I'm constantly amazed that anybody would touch SVN with a ten-foot pole. Talk about crap. And SVN is at least usable, unlike a lot of other projects. ..." [0]

git

small, fast, in active development and cross platform. Fast to install, less documentation. Originally I used cvs with a p-server which worked nicely allowing me to distribute dev & other files across other machines. But was a begger to install. Then I tried svn but never really liked a) lack of clients, confusing setup documentation.

Using Git now as I wanted a SCM for a new project and it was the fastest to install & use. Git also has the advantage of doing the same as svn but with less keystrokes. [1] Can also be used individually as a tool as well as a group. [2]

Having said that svn, cvs, rcs are still usable just not optimal for me.

[0] http://marc.info/?l=git&m=116129092117475

[1] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/tutorial.htm...

[2] http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/everyday.htm...

I watched some online videos on git and have now fallen in love, to the extent that love is possible between a man and an SCM.

The Linus Torvalds Google talk is great fun [0], but it may not actually convince you -- it'll just goad you. The Randall Schwartz talk [2] is more practical, and I recommend it. Finally, the Peepcode screencast [3] is worth the $9 -- it gives examples of git in action, and a handy cheat sheet. It's what finally pushed me over the edge into full-blown fanboy mode.

[0] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2199332044603874737

[1] http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3999952944619245780

[2] http://peepcode.com/products/git

svn

We're using it because it's free, suits our needs fine, and is pretty much the standard these days (especially for open source projects)

p.s. you know TortiseSVN is just a Windows client for Subversion, right?

Seconded. Mostly because I work with Tom, but I also use svn at work, because it really is the standard.

Distributed version control seems a bit like a fad to me. I admit it has some nice features, but I expect subversion to adapt the best that it doesn't already have (which isn't really all that much). They are already working on implementing local commits, which in my mind is the single biggest missing feature.

Right - version control doesn't strike me as a good place to play on the bleeding edge. I'll leave that to other people and spend time playing with something else experimental that won't lose a bunch of my critical data, or cause unexpected problems.

I agree completely - SVN is very standard, seems to be stable, and basically does everything most people will need. TortoiseSVN is a great client if you're using Windows.

The Linux kernel is fairly important and the kernel developers trust a "bleeding edge" VCS.

SVN is great for an individual or simple project, but sharing patches between branches is a nightmare.

It's more than fairly important, it's extremely important and big. That means that it's also a bit of an outlier in terms of lines of code, people involved, and so on, which is why Linus seems to have undertaken the painful project of making his own revision control thing.

I'll wait till he's shaken the bugs out until I give it a go, though, as being an early adopter gives me zero competitive advantage.

Thirded.

svn here too; plenty of nice clients and trac integration.

svn here too; plenty of nice clients and trac integration.

Subversion. Also, I'm using Trac as a bug tracker and wiki. It comes with a nice Subversion viewer.

Exactly ethe same here. Trac is sweet.

I used Subversion for years, and as awesome as Subversion is, Subversion really sucks. I use darcs for my personal projects, but it occasionally chokes for various reasons and some serious bugs have gone unfixed for several years. I'm now looking at Git, which is distributed like darcs but won't ever have the same unfixed bugs problem: Git is developed by Linus Torvalds and hosts the Linux kernel.

we have been using darcs for quite some time now. very happy with it thus far.

I was a user of SVN (the reasons are in the first comments) but now switched to Git, distributed scm is really nice. I also like the branching features of Git. And it's very easy to clone a repository, start hacking and committing local then submitting a patch.

I use svn and Mercurial. SVN for work (because the company uses it) and for my older projects, and Mercurial for my newer projects. I switched to Mercurial because it seemed like the best distributed system out there, and I like Python.

RCS because I'm working solo and setup is instant (emacs: C-x v v). When I need more I'll probably take the path of least resistance and use subversion, even though Mercurial is reputed to be superior.

If you use a CVS version of Emacs (maybe even the recently-released one, I don't remember when Eric Raymond submitted it), Emacs now plays nice with all the newest VCs as well (well I get errors with git but, it's probably me. It's /supposed/ to work. I'm sure the others do).

I've been trying to decide between the distributed ones for months. I'm about to go with HG. Any dire warnings before I do?

BTW, how to pronounce it, HG, or Mercurial?

I think that Mercurial is the official name. "Hg" is the chemical symbol for mercury.

darcs, it's distributed, doesn't require a server setup, lets me work without a network connection, and the cli is extremely user-friendly.

instead of committing files, darcs record lets me pick and choose what changes to include as part of a patch, resulting in cleaner patches which actually encompass a logical change to the code.

i've also heard many good things about git

mercurial with roundup... though looking to change the bug-tracking that can have an easier/simpler integration with hg :D

even though it is still pre 1.0, a lot of fixes are going into it, (did i mention it is written in Python? not that it should matter).

highlighter pens and a super special 'up to date' folder on my hard drive.

i used to use svn at work, and lately i tried git for my own needs.

git seems a lot better but i did not try it extensively.

Subversion is just plain awesome.

bazaar is great. so is git. i like them both.