On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 02:47:32PM -0600, Mike Miller wrote:
> That article seems to give a pretty good comparison of svn with git from
> someone who used svn extensively and discovered that he really liked git.
Here's my entirely biased, subjective and generalized perspective of
version control:
CVS: "previous generation" version control. I started with this, and it
worked great. Probably only used for legacy reasons at this point.
I'd be surprised if it was used much for new projects.
SVN: "current generation". written as a replacement for CVS, solving some
of CVS's largest warts. Currently probably has the highest usage of the
versioning softwares, and probably will for some time.
Distributed (Mercurial, Git): "next generation". The web 2.0 of
revision control - more dynamic, faster, etc.
Is SVN a worthy topic of discussion? Sure, but it'd be a disservice to
not mention distributed version control. Also, you'll get a different
turnout (more noobs (i use this term affectionately), few veterans),
probably.
Dan