> This article is idiotic and is clearly written by someone who doesn't understand Subversion. Or maybe you don't understand what the article is about. > You

> This article is idiotic and is clearly written by someone who doesn't understand Subversion. Or maybe you don't understand what the article is about. > You work on feature branches, then merge them into trunk. Only at the point of that merge are you sharing changes with everyone. > Merges aren't any scarier than they are in Hg/Git either despite common belief. This is the theory, but in practice I haven't seen SVN people doing it, I once worked for a company that had SVN and told the people that we should do feature branches, and the lead developer instantly rejected it, because it is too hard to merge. So either 99% of the people don't know how SVN works or branching is simply too damn hard in SVN. > Merges aren't any scarier than they are in Hg/Git either despite common belief. > All VCS problems are usually external to the VCS i.e. human or process issues. A lot of major projects switched to git from SVN, so either the are all "idiots" or they had a real issue with it. Even if all VCSes are equal as you say, the fact that people lack the mental capacity to comprehend the greatness of Subversion makes it inferior to Git.