Comments on: Top 10: Why Subversion is better than Git

By: Johannes Schneider

Johannes Schneider — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:18:22 +0000

Wow. This post is really old now…
But even with disclamiers at the beginning and the end of the article, nobody is able to detect the irony…

By: mike

mike — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:08:27 +0000

truly, you need to use git and then you will be deemed fit to make your comments.
Go ahead, dont be afaid, try it.
I am sure it wont hurt

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 06:48:06 +0000

obvious troll is obvious

By: Paul J R

Paul J R — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 13:43:36 +0000

Honestly this is one the most miss-informed posts i’ve ever read. To claim theres an industry standard for VCS shows at best a lack of understanding of the industry – however, if you went to any large organisation with a real code base and said that they’d laugh at you (google, apple, microsoft, oracle, cisco, the list is endless) and I can only assume you’ve never worked on projects with more then 5-10 people. Subverison (or cvs) certainly dont come close to solving all problems, they just do not scale. Interesting how you compare how often git releases to how often cvs/svn does given that their release ideals demonstrate fundamentally different ways of thinking not related to the stability of their code (again, a lack of understanding imho).

File locking? well, again, lack of understanding about the philosophy of how de-centralised repo’s work (versus concurrent).

Do you really want the last person who commits to deal with your merge? are you even serious? I can only assume thats actually a joke.

As for a central repo – this probably demonstrates how much you’ve miss-understood git (or how its supposed to work). Consider kernel.org as an example, everyone pulls from the main kernel tree (that linus owns) and yes they do commit locally, but what happens then? they then push back to their *OWN* git repo’s at kernel.org (I think you missed that last and most important part) – theres still a central archive with EVERYONES work in it, its in different repo’s, but its there. The best part of all this is that merge’s get handled sanely and cleanly into the main kernel tree.

Lastly, the first part of the article makes me believe perhaps this *IS* actually a troll/tounge-in-cheek view of svn and a list of the reasons why its actually bad. But i’ve stumbled across it a couple of times when “young” folks to the coding industry are arguing about svn and it so very much annoys me these days to get an email with a link to here in it.

By: Ninad

Ninad — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:46:04 +0000

1. Branching >>
You dont know what you are talking when you say branching is unnecessary.
What is the largest member size you have worked with for a project ?? 3 / 5 / 7 / 8 ?
I am currently working with 35 developers working on the same project across globe (India, US, Australia, Argentina). And there we need to have branching. Its impossible if everybody starts to commit their code, just because iit may conflict tomorrow, without there changes being stable, it would be a complete mess.
coz otherwise svn sucks at conflict resolutions on such a large cases and branch management in git makes it so easy.

2. centralized >>
versioning systems are code repositories and meant for programmers to make code base dveleopment manageable. Nobody cares if managers find it difficult, as long as it helps immensly versioning and managing codebasae development.
Managers would even love to go ahead with traditional of programming, as it is quick way of finishing project, does not mean developers have to give up on oops, where it helps in longer run.
Similarly, if managers like svn just because of centralized versioning, (then F**k them) does not mean, it needs to be that way.
makes sense ?

3. Easy to Use >>
Well, Opps vs traditional way of programming again can be a great example here. Usability matters over simplicity all the time when it comes to complex programming. If you cant digest complex things, give up programming and find another job. Dont call yourself a techie.

4. File Locking >>
File locking system has its own disadvantages, which i dont need to repeat. Branching and decentralization makes life easier in git. again large number of programmers working on same system across globe , and one forgets to unlock a file … downtime is costly in such cases. Use branching rather for every small modules.

5. Frequency of releases >>
Does not that suggest itself subversion was not a complete tool ?? and must be little unstable, as soo many releases are coming out . Seems to me that Git has been stable since very long time as they dont frequently release new things.

6. Merges are forced immediately
What if my current changes are still unstable, and can break the repository functionality. Would not that mess up other 34 guy’s work at their end if iam forced to commit ??? Does not it become disadvantage that time ???? Thats bullshit constrain.

I guess you are seeing only one side of coin dear.

By: tamale

tamale — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:02:26 +0000

it’s kinda sad how few people get dry sarcasm. i loved this post, hilarious and SO true!

By: fucema

fucema — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 15:13:31 +0000

The troll within a troll… this is so meta.

By: Serg

Serg — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:56:50 +0000

Nothing is more entertaining than watching people with broken sarcasm detectors go and have a rant… thanks for that.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:44:06 +0000

I wouldn’t normally comment like this, but I felt compelled to note that your article is a steaming pile of bullshit, I mean – “That sounds like some alternative to BitTorrent. I don’t support pirating!” is not a valid “point” in any argument. I could pick holes in all of your other points effortlessly, but I have better things to do.

By: Jeena

Jeena — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 15:38:34 +0000

Is this post ironic?
I can’t believe that developers or managers like you still exist, in 2010… Unbelievable. You’r toooooooooo old. Deprecated.