2 ms·
It seems you could replace all occurrences of subversion with cvs and all occurrences of git with subversion and you'd have a blog post you could date 2001.
by thwarted 18y ago
It seems you could replace all occurrences of subversion with cvs and all occurrences of git with subversion and you'd have a blog post you could date 2001.
- gjm11 18y agoUm, no. Because the specific complaints the author is making about git (compared with svn) aren't in fact ways in which svn is worse than CVS. If you didn't like Subversion (and preferred CVS) in 2001 it was because it was too new, because you'd heard scary stories of repository corruption, because you didn't like having a single revision number for your whole repository, that sort of thing. The only one of those that's at all parallel to any of what Micah is saying about git is the last one. Now, sure, both Micah's complaint now and an anti-svn complaint in 2001 fit the template "There's this cool new thing, and I'm not convinced it's an improvement on its predecessor". But, guess what, Micah said more than that, and the actual point is in the specific complaints he made, not in the fact "someone thinks something isn't better than what it's allegedly a better replacement for".