4 ms·

It would be really interesting to learn what git users think is less intuitive in Subversion than in git.

hamilyon2 5y ago
Quite a lot. * Syntax - in svn different commands use different conventions on how to use revision * In svn moving directories breaks "subdirectory as branch" abstraction. I.e. there are no actual branches. Only files and versions of them. * "Svn up" can fail, leaving working copy in broken, unpredictable state. This breaks abstraction, revealing that svn is little but copying files around. Git forces you to save your work and only then merge. That doesn't fail even when it fails to merge cleanly.
- COMMENT___ 5y ago
  * ahem. Revision is always a revision in SVN. It’s rN and all commands accept it. * ahem. All branches in SVN are copies of an existing tree at a particular revision. Call it a branch or whatever you want. But if you make a copy of your main development tree, you make a branch and you can work on it in the same fashion as if it was git. Merge it back to trunk when done or continue your work and sync with trunk or other branches. The principle is the same. * Failing “svn up” is an unexpected technical problem that occurs due to problems with the server or network. The problem should never happen in normal cases.
  - eru 5y ago
    To be honest, Git is pretty good about dealing with 'unexpected technical problems'. It even handles running multiple instances of git commands at the same time rather well.
  - hamilyon2 5y ago
    First point: Here is an official svn doc with lots of mentioning of @revision https://edoras.sdsu.edu/doc/svn-book-html-chunk/svn.ref.svn.c.diff.html https://edoras.sdsu.edu/doc/svn-book-html-chunk/svn.ref.svn.... Two styles of revisions is super confusing to users like me. Git confuses me a bit, but not in command syntax. Hope this illustration helps to see what I mean.
    - COMMENT___ 5y ago
      Maybe a more up to date version of the doc will help: https://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.pegrevs.html https://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.pegrevs...

Quite a lot. * Syntax - in svn different commands use different conventions on how to use revision * In svn moving directories breaks "subdirectory as branch" abstraction. I.e. there are no actual branches. Only files and versions of them. * "Svn up" can fail, leaving working copy in broken, unpredictable state. This breaks abstraction, revealing that svn is little but copying files around. Git forces you to save your work and only then merge. That doesn't fail even when it fails to merge cleanly.

COMMENT___ 5y ago
* ahem. Revision is always a revision in SVN. It’s rN and all commands accept it. * ahem. All branches in SVN are copies of an existing tree at a particular revision. Call it a branch or whatever you want. But if you make a copy of your main development tree, you make a branch and you can work on it in the same fashion as if it was git. Merge it back to trunk when done or continue your work and sync with trunk or other branches. The principle is the same. * Failing “svn up” is an unexpected technical problem that occurs due to problems with the server or network. The problem should never happen in normal cases.
- eru 5y ago
  To be honest, Git is pretty good about dealing with 'unexpected technical problems'. It even handles running multiple instances of git commands at the same time rather well.
- hamilyon2 5y ago
  First point: Here is an official svn doc with lots of mentioning of @revision https://edoras.sdsu.edu/doc/svn-book-html-chunk/svn.ref.svn.c.diff.html https://edoras.sdsu.edu/doc/svn-book-html-chunk/svn.ref.svn.... Two styles of revisions is super confusing to users like me. Git confuses me a bit, but not in command syntax. Hope this illustration helps to see what I mean.
  - COMMENT___ 5y ago
    Maybe a more up to date version of the doc will help: https://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.pegrevs.html https://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.pegrevs...