4 ms·

Subversion sucks, get over it

8 points by nickb 18y ago

axod 18y ago
I don't get all the continual subversion hate lately. Is it really that important? Maybe if you have 100 contributers to your open source project it starts to make sense, It's just becoming a bit tiresome reading the same old lists of why subversion sucks and why git is the best thing since sliced bread. Different tools suit different uses. Git seems good for open source tons of developers tons of patches/branches etc.
- tptacek 18y ago
  It makes no difference whatsoever. Some of the largest and most successful open source projects have done fine with CVS, or with nothing at all.
  - cstejerean 18y ago
    I would be really worried about an open source project without a source control system. Actually, I would be worried about any project, open source or not, developed without using source control.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
  - jacobscott 18y ago
    What large and successful open source projects have done fine with no source control? Did any of them chose consciously not to use source control? I'm really confused as to why a multi-developer project of any kind would ever not use source control.
    - etal 18y ago
      I had the impression that in the '90s, the Linux kernel was managed just by e-mailing patches around, before adopting Bitkeeper, and then git. Things are much easier now.
      - jacobscott 18y ago
        "The Linux kernel source code used to be maintained without the help of an automated source code management system, mostly because of Linus Torvalds' dislike of centralized SCM systems. In 2002, Linux kernel development switched to BitKeeper... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Revision_control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Revision_control Bizarre(-ng? just kidding!) but true.
- cstejerean 18y ago
  "Git seems good for open source tons of developers tons of patches/branches etc." If that's all Git seems good for I recommend you spend more time playing with it (or Mercurial if you want). There are many benefits to using something like Git even if you're not going to share the work with anyone.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Why? Why not just use it for the features you need? I mean, if you spend a lot of time researching features that you are not currently using, and you are currently maintaining your code enough to reach your goals, aren't you just wasting your time?
    - cstejerean 18y ago
      I hate to use the cliche of Ford and the faster horse, but sometimes figuring out whether or not you need something involves trying it. It's very easy to dismiss things you're not familiar with as things you don't need. For the longest time for example I thought I didn't need the power of Emacs. I finally tried it for Lisp development and now it's definitely something I need. Similarly back when I used Windows I didn't think I needed Linux for anything. I've felt similarly about Git. I'm orders of magnitude more productive than when I used svn. To me the time investment has been well worth it.
      - jacobscott 18y ago
        For me, there's a modest amount of activation energy associated with trying a new SCM. For work, there's an INCREDIBLY large amount of activation energy to move all of the developers, scripts, etc, off svn (although we don't develop open source). I think "you just need to try it" is the wrong approach. I want to know /why/ I should try it. I want to see my work flows called out and the minutes/hours I will save by switching from svn to git explained clearly. Svn certainly has its pain points, but I haven't seen a concise, easily digestible outline of what git (or its ilk) will get me.
        18y ago
- jaaron 18y ago
  Apache has hundreds (1000+) of committers across it's 60 projects, all of which successfully use a single SVN repository (which is how subversion was designed to be used).
ajkirwin 18y ago
Arrogant much?
DanielBMarkham 18y ago
There was a recent comment on here that was something like "I can see why you were downmodded, liking Quickbooks and all, but..." WTF is up with all of this brand-clanning? As long I use an OS, have a SCM system, use some sort of accounting package, etc -- do we really want to gang up and make some kind of decision as a herd? Most products on the marketplace do most of the things we want them to do. I've been using Subversion for a small effort with 4 programmers for the last six months or so. Works fine. I love P2P apps, but the argument made on this site was unpersuasive.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
charlesju 18y ago
I would have liked a comparison of the same problems in Git, which seems to be the version control system that is taking over SVN's reign as king.
sunkencity 18y ago
I like git, but until there's a compelling version for Windows there's no chance in hell it can be used to replace subversion. We have mostly Linux and OS X machines at work but we do need to do some development in windows to run emulators and such. Also what about all version controlled challenged that use Eclipse or Tortoise to work with the repository - how would they handle git? Also lol have everything in a separate repository. Who wants to maintain a list of repositories? Oh, no to check out THAT project you need to go to repository X... when people have trouble remembering a single subversion URL.

8 points by nickb 18y ago

axod 18y ago

I don't get all the continual subversion hate lately. Is it really that important? Maybe if you have 100 contributers to your open source project it starts to make sense, It's just becoming a bit tiresome reading the same old lists of why subversion sucks and why git is the best thing since sliced bread. Different tools suit different uses. Git seems good for open source tons of developers tons of patches/branches etc.

tptacek 18y ago
It makes no difference whatsoever. Some of the largest and most successful open source projects have done fine with CVS, or with nothing at all.
- cstejerean 18y ago
  I would be really worried about an open source project without a source control system. Actually, I would be worried about any project, open source or not, developed without using source control.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
- jacobscott 18y ago
  What large and successful open source projects have done fine with no source control? Did any of them chose consciously not to use source control? I'm really confused as to why a multi-developer project of any kind would ever not use source control.
  - etal 18y ago
    I had the impression that in the '90s, the Linux kernel was managed just by e-mailing patches around, before adopting Bitkeeper, and then git. Things are much easier now.
    - jacobscott 18y ago
      "The Linux kernel source code used to be maintained without the help of an automated source code management system, mostly because of Linus Torvalds' dislike of centralized SCM systems. In 2002, Linux kernel development switched to BitKeeper... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Revision_control http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Revision_control Bizarre(-ng? just kidding!) but true.
cstejerean 18y ago
"Git seems good for open source tons of developers tons of patches/branches etc." If that's all Git seems good for I recommend you spend more time playing with it (or Mercurial if you want). There are many benefits to using something like Git even if you're not going to share the work with anyone.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Why? Why not just use it for the features you need? I mean, if you spend a lot of time researching features that you are not currently using, and you are currently maintaining your code enough to reach your goals, aren't you just wasting your time?
  - cstejerean 18y ago
    I hate to use the cliche of Ford and the faster horse, but sometimes figuring out whether or not you need something involves trying it. It's very easy to dismiss things you're not familiar with as things you don't need. For the longest time for example I thought I didn't need the power of Emacs. I finally tried it for Lisp development and now it's definitely something I need. Similarly back when I used Windows I didn't think I needed Linux for anything. I've felt similarly about Git. I'm orders of magnitude more productive than when I used svn. To me the time investment has been well worth it.
    - jacobscott 18y ago
      For me, there's a modest amount of activation energy associated with trying a new SCM. For work, there's an INCREDIBLY large amount of activation energy to move all of the developers, scripts, etc, off svn (although we don't develop open source). I think "you just need to try it" is the wrong approach. I want to know /why/ I should try it. I want to see my work flows called out and the minutes/hours I will save by switching from svn to git explained clearly. Svn certainly has its pain points, but I haven't seen a concise, easily digestible outline of what git (or its ilk) will get me.
      - 18y ago
jaaron 18y ago
Apache has hundreds (1000+) of committers across it's 60 projects, all of which successfully use a single SVN repository (which is how subversion was designed to be used).

ajkirwin 18y ago

Arrogant much?

DanielBMarkham 18y ago

There was a recent comment on here that was something like "I can see why you were downmodded, liking Quickbooks and all, but..." WTF is up with all of this brand-clanning? As long I use an OS, have a SCM system, use some sort of accounting package, etc -- do we really want to gang up and make some kind of decision as a herd? Most products on the marketplace do most of the things we want them to do. I've been using Subversion for a small effort with 4 programmers for the last six months or so. Works fine. I love P2P apps, but the argument made on this site was unpersuasive.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

charlesju 18y ago

I would have liked a comparison of the same problems in Git, which seems to be the version control system that is taking over SVN's reign as king.

sunkencity 18y ago

I like git, but until there's a compelling version for Windows there's no chance in hell it can be used to replace subversion. We have mostly Linux and OS X machines at work but we do need to do some development in windows to run emulators and such. Also what about all version controlled challenged that use Eclipse or Tortoise to work with the repository - how would they handle git? Also lol have everything in a separate repository. Who wants to maintain a list of repositories? Oh, no to check out THAT project you need to go to repository X... when people have trouble remembering a single subversion URL.