Popular posts

SVN was great for its time, when GIT came along, it took a bit of getting used to, but I'm glad I made the switch, feels much easier and more powerful. Also, setting up an SVN repo was much more of a mission than setting up a GIT repo is and since I discovered Gitlab, it's a no-brainer setting up permissions, access controls, master branch protection, email notifications on commits, etc.

git used a very different and much clearer vocabulary for commands and controls. but without github i think it wouldn't have become that much of a big thing. forking, branching and merging was just a mouseclick away. if something went wrong, it was just a mouseclick to revert. svn is still terrible when errors happened.

Mr Torvalds definitely had some influence and since it's also easy to use SVN and GIT concurrently using only git commands, it probably helped as well, see stackoverflow.com/questions/3239759/checkout-remo…

I'm sure each version control system has its own benefits, SVN is just dated though and after Mercurial came on the scene, Google built their own vcs system based of mercurial to handle project sizes that GIT would choke on. For everything else, there's GIT.

(doesn't mean there aren't a dozen other reasons why you could choose one over the other, there's plenty of blogs around concerning that question)

The fantastic adoption mostly has to do with a certain kernel developer. Many SVN repositories were first converted to Mercurial (which is also decentral etc). There's still a great bunch of those around. Now Git is even more heavily used because of the Github social artifacts.

Yes, Git was designed around having a lot of branches, so handles it much better. Cool review I've found: codeforest.net/git-vs-svn

Also is it true that in SVN the branching was expensive? I know it's very cheap to create branches in git.