3 ms·
Probably the most popular one would be the "new hotness" that everyone used, or aspired to use, before git became popular, Subversion (https://subversion.apache
by im_down_w_otp 5y ago
Probably the most popular one would be the "new hotness" that everyone used, or aspired to use, before git became popular, Subversion (https://subversion.apache.org/ https://subversion.apache.org/).
There are others that aren't free (e.g. Perforce) and some that aren't quite dedicated to the monorepos & subtree workflow, but which handle it better by design (e.g. Darcs, http://darcs.net/ http://darcs.net/).
But, mostly I'm thinking of Subversion.
- 0xbadcafebee 5y agoThe reason I would use a Git monorepo over Subversion is that Subversion is really painful to use. I would rather workarounds and kludges than that tire fire.
- im_down_w_otp 5y agoThat was never my experience with Subversion, but YMMV.
- dalyons 5y agohaha yeah, noones going to go back to subversion. The sum of the pain of the SVN problems solved by git is much larger than the slight pain of using git for a mono-repo.
- triceratops 5y agoSubversion on the server used with git-svn is bearable. Most of the advantages of git (local commits, rebasing, easy branching and merging) manifest themselves on the client-side. The problem with using svn on the server is the lack of good tooling for things like code review. There's no SvnHub or SvnLab.