This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Re: Why is it better than Subversion?

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 192.163.20.232] on November 21, 2007 08:48 AM
Most people just use what's around. What is most commonly around is CVS or Subversion. I think far more code is still developed with CVS than SVN for the "its there" reason. We've had basically the same revision control packages since the 70s - SCCS, RCS, CVS (which is basically a front end to RCS), SVN (which is just CVS reimplemented, with no real benefits). Various commercial packages have come, and often gone, but stiill brought nothing really new.

Finally people are starting to move beyond these early crude packages. The older control systems really hamper people's style, and provide very poorly for distributed working, and experimental branching. People live in fear of refactoring, or even simple mass replacing poorly chosen variable or function names. Guiding development around the needs of the revision control system is a really sad way of working.

Mercurial, git, and commercial packages like Bit Keeper are finally trying to address the way modern development works. They are attempts to make revision control a support tool, instead of a straight jacket. Time will tell how successful they have been. However, you might notice from the growing list of major projects using these tools that people are eager to put a lot of effort into trying something new.

#

Return to Introducing Mercurial, a distributed version control system