3 ms·
subversion was well-loved by its loyal users at the time as part of "net culture"; speaking of SVN any other way is revisionist. Meanwhile, plenty of companies
by mistrial9 3y ago
subversion was well-loved by its loyal users at the time as part of "net culture"; speaking of SVN any other way is revisionist. Meanwhile, plenty of companies sold proprietary source code control, since forever; few people loved those products as rigor and management were the constant, user-oriented features not so much, and there was no sense of community or user-control in sight.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoThat makes some sense. A lot of the other technical decisions made in the early days of the company were surprisingly well-considered in retrospect, so at a time when it's either SVN or e.g. BitKeeper, a reasonable person would probably also want to stick with SVN.
- veidr 3y agoAs somebody old enough to a.) have used svn, and b.) only fully migrated everything to git in 2010: Subversion:CVS was like NVMe-SSD:HDD, and Subversion:Perforce was like SATA-SSD:HDD. Git:Subversion is more like RTX2080:RTX3080, or, say, '78 Datsun 2080Z:'93 Acura Integra. BETTER, yes, sure, yes. OMFGIGOTTASWITCHNOW!!!!, not really.