3 ms·

I worked at a pretty well regarded and reputable organisation that still used SVN. (Pretty sure they still do). If not for my yammering there wouldn't be any g

I worked at a pretty well regarded and reputable organisation that still used SVN. (Pretty sure they still do). If not for my yammering there wouldn't be any git in use by any team there. (Only a year ago) All the code progressed fine. git would still have improved it but nobody had bothered to switch yet.

mb_72 9y ago
As a mostly solo developer I haven't found a need to switch away from SVN to git or anything else; doing so would involve work I can't bill for and for no benefit to myself or existing clients. Some things in software and life in general are Fine Just As They Are.
- dragonshed 9y ago
  I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git. I still use SVN from time to time with my old repos, but if given an opening, I migrate it to git without hesitation.
  - sjellis 9y ago
    "I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git." Git is an incredibly powerful tool for managing a set of files over time, but if you just use the handful of basic commands, then I agree that the immediate big win is branching. Personally, I found that moving from Subversion to Git fundamentally changed my work habits (for the better). I was a lone developer at the time, so the collaboration aspect wasn't really important. I noticed that Git made it so easy to create a repository that I put everything into version control: not just application code, but random scripts and notes. The other gain was that I learned to work in small, focused commits, because Git is so fast that commiting often is not a burden. Once I made that change, the commit history became meaningful and useful in a way that that Subversion never was: I could quickly revert code, and look back at individual commits for information.
    - pdfernhout 9y ago
      "The other gain was that I learned to work in small, focused commits" This!
sixothree 9y ago
We still use SVN (but tfs git for greenfield projects). We are a small company and only 2 or 3 devs work on the same project at a time. Git itself doesn't solve any problems we have. We still deal with merges when someone goes nuts refactoring.
- petre 9y ago
  Fossil is a great replacement for that kind of use case. You can fully convert a git or a svn repository with fossil import, so migration is painless. It's also painless for users since fossil is very easy to pick up compared to git and the basic commands are quite similar to svn. Branching and merging is a breeze compared to svn, quite like git but easier. It's also nice for companies that want everything in one place, since all developer repos sync with a central repo by default. It's also distributed in the sense that everything gets replicated to every repo that's in sync with the central repo (it does this automatically at fossil update or fossil sync) contains the full project history.
astura 9y ago
This is surprising? My company uses SVN. SVN works fine so there isn't really a reason to spend the man hours migrating a crap ton of projects to to Git. Before SVN existed we used CVS and we migrated to SVN from CVS about, idk, 15-ish years ago?
- JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
  Yes, there are people who are surprised that many have the opinion that SVN is fine for a lot of projects and you don't need to migrate for the sake of it. That's more or less what I was getting at.

mb_72 9y ago

As a mostly solo developer I haven't found a need to switch away from SVN to git or anything else; doing so would involve work I can't bill for and for no benefit to myself or existing clients. Some things in software and life in general are Fine Just As They Are.

dragonshed 9y ago
I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git. I still use SVN from time to time with my old repos, but if given an opening, I migrate it to git without hesitation.
- sjellis 9y ago
  "I also did this until the day came when I wanted to branch and someone showed me how easy it was in git." Git is an incredibly powerful tool for managing a set of files over time, but if you just use the handful of basic commands, then I agree that the immediate big win is branching. Personally, I found that moving from Subversion to Git fundamentally changed my work habits (for the better). I was a lone developer at the time, so the collaboration aspect wasn't really important. I noticed that Git made it so easy to create a repository that I put everything into version control: not just application code, but random scripts and notes. The other gain was that I learned to work in small, focused commits, because Git is so fast that commiting often is not a burden. Once I made that change, the commit history became meaningful and useful in a way that that Subversion never was: I could quickly revert code, and look back at individual commits for information.
  - pdfernhout 9y ago
    "The other gain was that I learned to work in small, focused commits" This!

sixothree 9y ago

We still use SVN (but tfs git for greenfield projects). We are a small company and only 2 or 3 devs work on the same project at a time. Git itself doesn't solve any problems we have. We still deal with merges when someone goes nuts refactoring.

petre 9y ago
Fossil is a great replacement for that kind of use case. You can fully convert a git or a svn repository with fossil import, so migration is painless. It's also painless for users since fossil is very easy to pick up compared to git and the basic commands are quite similar to svn. Branching and merging is a breeze compared to svn, quite like git but easier. It's also nice for companies that want everything in one place, since all developer repos sync with a central repo by default. It's also distributed in the sense that everything gets replicated to every repo that's in sync with the central repo (it does this automatically at fossil update or fossil sync) contains the full project history.

astura 9y ago

This is surprising? My company uses SVN. SVN works fine so there isn't really a reason to spend the man hours migrating a crap ton of projects to to Git. Before SVN existed we used CVS and we migrated to SVN from CVS about, idk, 15-ish years ago?

JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
Yes, there are people who are surprised that many have the opinion that SVN is fine for a lot of projects and you don't need to migrate for the sake of it. That's more or less what I was getting at.