Apache Celebrates Subversion's 20th Anniversary

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Apache Celebrates Subversion's 20th Anniversary

The Subversion version control system is celebrating its 20th anniversary...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Subversion-Turns-20

[squash]

They should celebrate by catching up to the rest of the world and moving to git. Nobody will miss svn.

[L_A_G]

20 years is definitely a long time in the world of software, but when it's software me and so many other have had bad experiences with it's just way too long for it to not have gone the way of the dodo bird.

I'm really not kidding about how much I despise SVN after having used it in a few projects. It's barely better than having no version control at all (which I unfortunately have both seen and rectified in a professional environment).

[Setif]

.....

[cynic]

I've been using svn a lot so I won't be so harsh against it as other commenter
anyway, since I moved to git I never looked back to svn again!

[sdack]

Great to see the long-lasting support for SVN. It's certainly of help to all those who are not fortunate enough to just migrate to the next new thing.

[uid313]

Git can also handle large files through the Git Large File Storage (LFS) extension developed by GitHub. The way it works is that it replaces large files such as audio samples, videos, datasets, and graphics with text pointers inside Git, while storing the file contents on a remote server like GitHub.com or GitHub Enterprise.

[rene]

the haters here forget that SVN provided a stable solution when mostly only CVS was used and BitKeeper was proprietary. As early SVN adopter I have to save it was great, and still is way easier to use than git, where most users either need to use a GUI frontend, or google the right cryptic command syntax, and then still usually shoot themselves into the feet. Also to the haters: try to write a substation contribution to the open source landscape before hating others people major projects, ..! ;-)

[kpedersen]

Yeah, svn has been pretty good over the years. Plus I see a lot of use for it in smaller teams (i.e of 2-20) where a distributed VCS is overkill.

Plus, svnserve is IMO much better for a number of use cases than raw ssh access or setting up extremely heavy VMs and web servers just to share a git repo. Git's git daemon and Git protocol misses out on user permissions rendering it very limited. Again, small teams of 2-20 are the key target that is missing out. Too small for a proper GitLab instance and too big for direct ssh access.

Also, some here may be interested to know that GitHub supports svn. For example:

   [LEFT][COLOR=#252C2F][FONT=Segoe UI][SIZE=14px]$ svn co https://github.com/WebAssembly/binaryen/trunk[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

[bug77]

the haters here forget that SVN provided a stable solution when mostly only CVS was used and BitKeeper was proprietary. As early SVN adopter I have to save it was great, and still is way easier to use than git, where most users either need to use a GUI frontend, or google the right cryptic command syntax, and then still usually shoot themselves into the feet. Also to the haters: try to write a substation contribution to the open source landscape before hating others people major projects, ..! ;-)

Hear, hear!

I also started out loving SVN as a much better replacement for CVS. And now I cringe when I have to use it (I git-svn over it, but that doesn't convince the team to use branches properly).
SVN did its job at its time. But the world has moved on.