Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?

2008/9/30 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt;: > On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 05:46 -0400, Thomas Thurman wrote: >> 2008/9/30 Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de&gt;: >> > * CVS (and RCS) archives can be converted/exported to almost all other >> > VCS if required. >> >> Are CVS and RCS archives equivalent? > IIRC, widely. However I have to admit, my last encounter with RCS dates > back to more than a decade, so ... ;) Which is why I was wondering why you were recommending it over CVS, you see. >> I think you misunderstand bzr. Bzr is a generic distributed VCS, >> roughly equivalent to git. > > Well, my point is "lack of a userbase", "availability of clients on > different platforms", "integration in IDEs", "VCS providers offering it" > So far, I have never tripped over a major project which is actively > using bzr nor have I ever met a user using it :) You might not be a fan of MySQL or Ubuntu, but I don't really see how they qualify as not being major.

As for "availability of clients on different platforms": one particular case I've run into was a company I worked at recently where they decided to go for bzr over git.

When I started I asked what their rationale had been, and they told me it was because some of their developers ran *nix and some ran Windows. They found at the time that bzr had better cross-platform support (possibly because of being written in an interpreted language). Perhaps CVS is even more widely ported, though, merely by virtue of being older.

> Or differently: Don't underestimate the "familiarity factor" when > launching a new archive.

Very true. This is occasionally a very good reason to stick with svn (or even CVS, although svn is practically a drop-in replacement for CVS and solves many of its infelicities).