That's true that there was no command "svn branch", there was only the command "svn copy". It's true that command could have been better named, like many Git co

That's true that there was no command "svn branch", there was only the command "svn copy". It's true that command could have been better named, like many Git commands could have been better named. However, don't let that confuse you. The "svn copy" command creates a new place where you can do independent development, and where afterwards merging back can occur. So it's the same as a branch by that definition. An "svn copy" is a lightweight copy, with a reference back to the place the copy was made from. - "svn merge" does its merge by looking at what commits have been made at the original location (since the copy), and the commits to the copy. - "git merge" does its merge by looking at what commits have been made on the original branch (since the new branch was created) and the commits on the new branch. So "svn merge" and "git merge" act in the same manner. (Of course there are differences in the algorithm, but I wish to refute the point that Subversion "does not support branching [at all]".) And if you never use "svn merge" or "git merge", then a branch is just a copy, in either system.