Comments on: svn merge sucks http://telegraph-road.org/blog/2007/08/11/svn-merge-sucks/ Guillaume Laurent's blog Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:30:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Blog::new » Blog Archives » More info on git from Linus http://telegraph-road.org/blog/2007/08/11/svn-merge-sucks/#comment-1918 Blog::new » Blog Archives » More info on git from Linus Tue, 21 Aug 2007 11:09:37 +0000 http://telegraph-road.org/blog/2007/08/11/svn-merge-sucks/#comment-1918 [...] svn merge sucks [...] [...] svn merge sucks [...]

]]> By: Chris Cannam http://telegraph-road.org/blog/2007/08/11/svn-merge-sucks/#comment-1917 Chris Cannam Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:24:56 +0000 http://telegraph-road.org/blog/2007/08/11/svn-merge-sucks/#comment-1917 Reading over my reply, I notice I said "VCS system" every time. Ugh. Reading over my reply, I notice I said “VCS system” every time. Ugh.

]]> By: Chris Cannam http://telegraph-road.org/blog/2007/08/11/svn-merge-sucks/#comment-1916 Chris Cannam Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:21:38 +0000 http://telegraph-road.org/blog/2007/08/11/svn-merge-sucks/#comment-1916 I remember being surprised when I first discovered that Subversion didn't support merge tracking. It did make me wonder what the point of it was. The stated aim for Subversion had been to "fix" CVS, but leaving aside the big obvious stuff like being unable to rename things, the lack of merge tracking is the single biggest problem with CVS, and it wasn't fixed. (My earliest exposure to commercial VCS systems was to ClearCase, and that handles merging with a nice graphical visualiser, although it's not a particularly nice system to use otherwise. I always thought merging was just part of what a VCS system should do for you.) But I can't really complain -- the Subversion project still did a good job at something that's not easy to get right. After all, there still isn't any better competition, in the sense of a free-software VCS system that handles merging properly using a central repository (I don't care what anyone says, there are plenty of times when a central repository is exactly what a project needs). Subversion is better enough to be a useful tool in spite of its flaws; I started out thinking it was a waste of time, and in day-to-day use it just about won me over. Chris I remember being surprised when I first discovered that Subversion didn’t support merge tracking. It did make me wonder what the point of it was. The stated aim for Subversion had been to “fix” CVS, but leaving aside the big obvious stuff like being unable to rename things, the lack of merge tracking is the single biggest problem with CVS, and it wasn’t fixed. (My earliest exposure to commercial VCS systems was to ClearCase, and that handles merging with a nice graphical visualiser, although it’s not a particularly nice system to use otherwise. I always thought merging was just part of what a VCS system should do for you.)

But I can’t really complain — the Subversion project still did a good job at something that’s not easy to get right. After all, there still isn’t any better competition, in the sense of a free-software VCS system that handles merging properly using a central repository (I don’t care what anyone says, there are plenty of times when a central repository is exactly what a project needs). Subversion is better enough to be a useful tool in spite of its flaws; I started out thinking it was a waste of time, and in day-to-day use it just about won me over.

Chris

]]>