From: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...>
Date: 2007-04-03T22:01:36+09:00
Subject: Re: Why SVN?

On 4/3/07, Kevin Williams <kevwil@gmail.com> wrote:
> To comment on the original question, SVN has the following going for it:
>
> * free
> * cross-platform
> * commercial support
> * large installations
> * vast community knowledge
> * editor/ide/tool integration
> * visual UI options
> * good administrative tools/practices
> * fair security/authentication tools
> * written in a common and performant language
> * stable
>
> I've used VSS, ClearCase, Perforce(currently at work), CVS, SVN, Darcs,
> SVK, and some others I can't remember. Perforce is very good, but
> expensive. SVK - i do use it but I can't seem to get past my bias
> against Perl. I couldn't even begin to look at Git because I use Windows
> and Mac mostly. Darcs is performant, free, and cross-platform - all good
> - but it doesn't compete against the list above, at least not yet. I'm
> keeping my eye on it, though. I wouldn't use VSS, CVS, or ClearCase
> again, given the choice.
>
> I think this list is why SVN is such an easy choice. None of these are
> perfect, so it comes down to your work style and project needs.
> Distributed systems make more sense for start-ups with all remote devs
> than in big brick-and-mortar enterprises with all on-site development.
> Perforce would be hard to beat if it were free and had a distributed
> option, but I don't see the free thing happening any time soon. Find
> wide adoption and support of Darcs, or decentralization of Subversion,
> and you may find a break-away leader. Until then you need to ask "which
> one fits the way I/we work?".
>
> Hope that helps. :)

You did not mention mercurial which is easier to start with than
darcs. It uses python which is more widespread than the thing darcs
uses.
Unlike git I haven't seen a large project using mercurial (yet).
However, I guess pretty much all the advantages you named above would
apply to mercurial as well.

There is a link to SCM comparison site earlier in the thread. From
that it looks like the centralized SCMs are more space efficient in
some cases (ie working on part of the repository) at the cost of being
less flexible (only one central repository to which you need access
all the time, harder branching).

To me the move the use of distributed SCM brings complete new way of
thinking about code management that things like SVK do not. All the
repositories are the same, one may be "central" only because more
people use it than any other.

Thanks

Michal