Re: Two More Very General Consulting Question
On 12/7/2011 1:58 PM, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Roedy Green wrote:
see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/subversion.html
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/tortoisesubversion.html
I would say that in this day and age, it is no longer appropriate to
suggest Subversion. Subversion was the best tool available for a long
time, and it is still perfectly serviceable, but there are better tools
available now; projects using it can keep using it without worry, but
there is no reason for a new project, or a project adopting a new source
control system, to start using it.
VCS is an area where fashion often seems to overshadow
facts.
When SVN came out then CVS was suddenly so oldfashioned - you
could not use a VCS without atomic commits without being
considered stone age.
I have never seen an actual problem due to CVS not having
atomic commits. Or even read about. Maybe the problem was
not that important.
Today with hg and git then SVN is suddenly so oldfashioned - you
can not use a non-distributed VCS without being
considered stone age.
The distributed part is great for code that is being worked on
by completely independent organizations (read: large open source
projects).
But most people do not really have that need.
So hg and git are great tools. But there are actually
not anything wrong by using SVN or even CVS for most
contexts.
And knowing a specific software is actually a good
reason to continue keep using it.
Arne