> An outdated myth. Don't you mean an outdated fact, since it was true. > Certain workflow limitations exist. Also true of SVN. I'd argue it is more true of

> An outdated myth. Don't you mean an outdated fact, since it was true. > Certain workflow limitations exist. Also true of SVN. I'd argue it is more true of SVN than Git, but whatever. > Git history is not safe You gave so much leniency to subversion for half-truths earlier, but you're going to come down on Git for this? `rebase` does not destroy history. `commit --amend` does not destroy history. `filter-branch` does not destroy history. The old commits are still there. You can easily find them with `reflog`. `reset --hard` doesn't even add new commits, just changes where a branch pointer points. As identified by others in this thread, this is really cherry-picking the issues and totally ignoring some major flaws and drawbacks specific to SVN that led to DVCS's in the first place. If it wasn't already obvious that this was a biased piece, you include only negeative experiences with git in your "further reading" section.