This is hardly an unbiased post... which is fine, people can write what they want to write, but it makes it easy to dismiss the entire article as simply being t

This is hardly an unbiased post... which is fine, people can write what they want to write, but it makes it easy to dismiss the entire article as simply being the work of an “svn fanboy”. It also has some inaccuracies: git can be extended to support large repositories; Microsoft has OS tooling that enables them to keep the entire Windows codebase in a single git repo, using a “copy-on-access” model, which seems to be equivalent to SVN’s offering. And things like git-lfs help with large binaries. As for the “larger teams” argument, if all you’re looking for is consistency of single files, SVN’s model seems to be equivalent to pulling before a push... which is what you do anyways (Maybe I’m missing something here?). As for the CLI, I consider that separate from the interesting discussion. There are good CLI wrappers for git (gitless, etc), and also GUI wrappers. I’m sure similar wrappers exist for SVN, but it’s besides the point.