Well truth is Subversion is still going strong and just released version 1.8.
While Git is still faster for some things, Greg Stein, the former chair of the Apache Software Foundation, figures SVN is better than Git at lots of things.
- Chat non payment sex chat
- Free adult chat sites without using a credit card
- is zoloft activating or sedating
- reese witherspoon dating kevin connelly
- dating pathe records
- dating minors in arizona
- Fee online sex voice chat
Version 10.1 of Syncro SVN Client includes a variety of improvements and bug fixes.
The Create Patch operation was completely reworked and the Merge wizard now includes a pre-merge validation check.
From the article: '"With Subversion, you can have a 1T repository and check out just a small portion of it, The developers don't need full copies," Stein explained.
"Git shops typically have many, smaller repositories, while svn shops typically have a single repository, which eases administration, backup, etc."'" Major new features of 1.8 include switching to a new metadata storage engine by default instead of using Berkeley DB, first-class renames (instead of the CVS-era holdover of deleting and recreating with a new name) which will make merges involving renamed files saner, and a slightly simplified branch merging interface.
In contrast, rebasing unifies the lines of development by re-writing changes from the source branch so that they appear as children of the destination branch – effectively pretending that those commits were written on top of the destination branch all along.
Here’s a visual comparison between merging and rebasing a branch ‘feature/awesomestuff’ back to the master branch (click for full size): So merging keeps the separate lines of development explicitly, while rebasing always ends up with a single linear path of development for both branches.Conflicts are marked where none should exists, and other changes are just gone. Then second time you do it, depending on how attendant you are to start revisions, you may copy those changes again — this is slightly problematical.You cry, you weep, you descend into alcohol and drug use, you watch old Star Trek reruns. Invariably people around you say “use GIT”; “use Mercurial”; “use Arch”; whatever. The killer is when you then merge all the changes from you branch to trunk — not only do these include a bunch of changes already made from trunk, your time line is now screwy. w=450" class="size-full wp-image-616" title="svn-problem1x600" src="https://designbygravity.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/svn-problem1x6001.png? w=450&h=177" alt="SVN Branch Merge Example 1 - Red for Trunk, Cyan for Branch." width="450" height="177" srcset="https://designbygravity.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/svn-problem1x6001.png? Let’s look at what happens when you get to T5 and want to merge your changes into trunk: The sequence looks like: T1 (already was in trunk, and was reapplied to the branch), T0 (from the merge at T2), T4 (because it was already in trunk), then T3.If merging a branch back into trunk (or into whichever other branch it was branched off from) use the "reintegrate" type of merge.If you stick to that there should be no spurious conflicts.Also, various other operations received numerous improvements and their list of options were updated.