Re: Alternative DVCS to git: hg?

[Sad Clouds <cryintothebluesky%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:38 AM Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:05, Sad Clouds <cryintothebluesky%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
> >
> > Does it actually need to be distributed? If no, then what's wrong with
> > Subversion? Personally, I can't stand Git.
>
> Subversion fails on two counts:
>
> - it isn't ACID (I'm told that's the correct DB term)
> In subversion parallel pushes are magically merged, maybe.  For
> instance: developer #1's deletes a .h macro and developer #2 adds a .c
> use.  ACID guarantees that #1 XOR #2 wins, and the other gets to sort
> out the mess.
>
> - it doesn't have true branches
> Instead it has conventions; lots of conventions; and based on
> experience, projects end up discovering that developers have been
> following all of them
>
> Oh, and I now forget how many years it is since GCC,  a relatively
> small project, has being trying to migrate away from subversion.

Maybe you are confusing Subversion with CVS?

I've never seen the problem that you describe with concurrent commits.
The commits to the same file are done atomically, so one will succeed
and another will fail.

What exactly is a "true branch"? Subversion does have branches, they
are fast and work quite well.

Somebody mentioned lack of tags, well Subversion uses branches, they
are essentially the same thing.

If some project is migrating from Subversion to Git, then there can be
all sorts of reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean that Subversion is
crap.