Apache Celebrates Subversion's 20th Anniversary

[sdack]

git CLI is actually usable by humans. It's just that git has so many functionality that you have a boatload of options, and you have to hit the manual in any case.
There is a reason if CLI isn't the be-all end-all of interfaces.

The same can be said for much simpler (but still complex) tools like tar. Relevant xkcd comic for proof:

tar xaf some.tar.xz

I use tar daily, as well as git. For some can old software not "die" fast enough, others forget or don't seem to know that git gui is a quite usable interface as well as a simple CLI command, and I probably have missed the chance to complain about something trivial just so I can bond with a noob.

[bug77]

tar xaf some.tar.xz

I use tar daily, as well as git. For some can old software not "die" fast enough, others forget or don't seem to know that git gui is a quite usable interface as well as a simple CLI command, and I probably have missed the chance to complain about something trivial just so I can bond with a noob.

You don't even need "a" for unpacking. Just for packing, iirc.

[F.Ultra]

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).

Sounds like you are confusing SVN with CVS. If not then you cannot with a straight face say that it's better to have no version control at all.

Not everyone under the sun have a use for distributed source control and if you don't use a lot of branching then git is far more complex a beast then svn. Where I work we use SVN for everything and have done so for years and have never encountered a situation where I was wishing for something like GIT.

In fact whenever I'm contributing to some external open source project that uses GIT it's always a major hassle to generate patches and so forth, so much that I have to google it every single time. Meanwhile on SVN all you do is update the local repo (svn up), do your changes and then produce the diff (svn diff).

[F.Ultra]

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

Obviously all us SVN users would miss it. Your logic was not strong there . Not everyone needs what GIT provides, especially at the cost of the additional complexity.

[bavay]

I've used SVN daily for the last 12 years (for projects where we have a most a handful of devs). In the last few months, I've worked a lot on another project that uses git (we are still just a handful of devs). I must admit it: I totally hate it. I find that it is all very confusing, I have the feeling I don't have any good overview of how the project evolves anymore, etc With SVN, I use kdesvn and I love it. Does somebody know of a good GUI for git that goes beyond simple commit / pull cycles (ie a tool where it is possible to quickly see all the logs related to a particular file or directory, to do a diff between two past revisions for two files or directories, to produce an annotated file like "svn blame", etc)? Right now I have tried qgit and git-cola and I have the feeling of being almost totally in the dark regarding the history of the code... many thanks to those who could show me the light of modernity! :-)

[Vistaus]

Mercurial is definitely better then SVN.

How exactly?

[ireri]

yeah but it is actually about tar (and not about git) so it is proving my point (about all complex CLI tools being hard to use due to how CLI intrinsically is), not yours (that Git is somehow bad or worse than most CLI tools).

Not totally true, there are many great CLI software made to be user friendly; take ZFS for example, If you just know the basic commands, you can infer the rest and be correct most of the times, Nano and Streamlink are two other super easy to use although not as complex as git, svn or zfs.

[starshipeleven]

take ZFS for example, If you just know the basic commands, you can infer the rest and be correct most of the times,

Not my experience.

Nano and Streamlink are two other super easy to use although not as complex as git, svn or zfs.

Nano has literally 6-8 commands and prints what buttons to press for them at the bottom of the window/screen.

I have no experience with streamlink

[timofonic]

Obviously all us SVN users would miss it. Your logic was not strong there . Not everyone needs what GIT provides, especially at the cost of the additional complexity.

Are you a BSD user too?

[coder]

small teams of 2-20 are the key target that is missing out. Too small for a proper GitLab instance

I first started using git as a replacement for RCS, which I liked because it worked locally (i.e. no server required). Sometimes, I have a collection of config files that are already stored on some backed-up filesystem and I just want to add a version history. RCS was fine for that, but git is better.

I don't know if that's why you excluded 1-person projects, but I've used it for lots of them.

Also, I've used git on github/gitlab for multi-person projects < 20. I don't find SVN having an advantage here, either.