Subversion Sucks

Yes, svn sucks even more than CVS.

“If you are using Subversion, stop it. Just stop. Subversion = Leeches. Mercurial and Git = Antibiotics.” – Joel Spolsk

“Sticking to subversion is like installing Windows 95 on your developers’ PCs. If they don’t know anything better they won’t complain, though it might not be a bright decision from a management viewpoint.” – Mike

“[Svn is] the IE6 of version control” – James S.


Subject: Re: BK is *evil* corporate software [was Re: New BK License Problem?]
Received: Mon Oct  7 16:39:03 2002
Sent: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:36:42 -0400 (EDT)
Name: Alexander Viro 
Email: viro@math.psu.edu
Id: Pine.GSO.4.21.0210071723200.29030-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu
Inreplyto: 20021007204414.GD7428@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Pavel Machek wrote: 
> Good thing for who? 
> 
> Good thing for Larry? I don't know. 
> 
> Good thing for us? I don't think so. 
> 
> Good thing for subversion developers? Definitely not. 

Damn you. That thread got me to download subversion source and read it - 
mistake I won't repeat any time soon. I've spent several months wading 
through fairly disgusting code - block device drivers are not pretty, 
ditto for devfs. I had more than once found myself grabbing Lovecraft 
to read something that would be less nightmare-inducing. But _THAT_ takes 
the fscking cake - I don't _care_ what Larry (or anybody else for that 
matter) does to people who had excreted that code. No, wait - I _do_ care. 
I want video of the... event. 

I don't use BK, but you can be damn sure that I won't touch SVN. Ever. 
- 

Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/2many] - FInd the maintainer(s) for a patch - scripts/get_maintainer.pl
From-R13: Oy Hveb <ivebNsgc.yvahk.bet.hx>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:41:30 &#45;0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: 20070816154029.GN21089@ftp.linux.org.uk

On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 12:58:19PM +0200, Rene Herman wrote:

> Googling around, I see subversion already has this and calls the meta-data 
> "properties" (svn propset/get and friends). It uses a few properties 
> itself, such as the svn:executable property (which I saw is also the only 
> permission bit git keeps) and svn:ignore, which serves the same role as the 
> .gitignore files for git. Both those would fit into this scheme nicely for 
> git as well, if git were to do something similar and reserve for example 
> the "git.*" namespace for internal use.

"svn does it" is usually an indication of a bad idea, but anyway - it's
fundamentally wrong in this case, simply because "$FOO is interested
in $BAR" is a property of $FOO, not of $BAR.

See Also