4 ms·
A joke or not, this makes SVN look bad. As a SVN user I don't appreciate the message here. Every piece of technology is a platform that needs mindshare to surv
by mantrax4 13y ago
A joke or not, this makes SVN look bad.
As a SVN user I don't appreciate the message here. Every piece of technology is a platform that needs mindshare to survive. If it has no mindshare, it might as well be an excellent piece of engineering, but it'll still disappear.
In a perfectly rational world, with perfect communication, and universal understanding of everything, it wouldn't be a big deal - SVN and Git have different best use cases.
But in our real world, this action gives excellent bullets for the anti-SVN people to use now in any discussion bringing Git vs. SVN.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- to3m 13y agoI can't see this working out poorly for the pro-SVN people one way or the other. If you'd probably be better off with git, you should use git - but svn will certainly prove workable enough in the same situation. On the other hand, if you'd be better off with svn, most likely due to its locking functionality, by comparison git is very likely to prove painful enough to warrant a switch. Ideally this will cement SVN's position in its niche. Most git users seem to deny that this niche even exists, but I think it is there. I see SVN's more natural competitor as Perforce (which currently beats SVN as handily as git does, though from the opposite direction), but its maintainers seem not to be bothering to take it on, presumably due to their perception of SVN's position in the marketplace. Were they to admit that it's lost to git on what has become git's home turf, which it seems that they're doing, perhaps this would help focus attention elsewhere...