# Why SVN? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [March 12, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576 "2007-03-12T20:26:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/1 "2007-03-12T20:26:32Z")
Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git? Subversion has apparently become the version control system of choice for Ruby developers --especially now that Ruby itself uses it. I suspect that might have a lot to do with Rails and Rubyforge. Ruby only switched over to SVN well after Rails had been using it. And Rubyforge currently only supports SVN and CVS, which I find a bit surprising since, from what I understand, supporting Darcs is just a matter of having Darcs installed. And I can’t imagine Git is much different. So I’m wondering, what’s so special about SVN as opposed to the other choices? Is it because SVN is more like CVS than the other choices? The fact that SVN isn’t distributed I would think would work against it (though I hear SVK is supposed to deal with that). Darcs is written in Haskell, and from the word on the street a lot of Ruby folk seem to like Haskell. Also, Git was written by Linus Torvalds, which is about as good as credentials can get. Thanks, T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/2 "2007-03-12T20:37:33Z")
Why not SVN? On 3/12/07, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > different. > T. – “Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand, Your actions speak so loud, I can’t hear a word you’re saying.” -Greg Graffin (Bad Religion) ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/3 "2007-03-12T20:46:34Z")
On 3/12/07, Glen H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Why not SVN? This is going a bit OT for ruby-talk, but I’ll bite. I work from several different machines, in several different locations, including from a laptop that is often disconnected from the internet. It’s extremely useful for me to be able to record changes, branch, work, in my normal manner, without worrying about the fact that when I DO get a connection all my changes will show up as one big lump. So I use Darcs over SSH. It gives me a full, functional repository with “commits” as I need them, without being connected. Then when I get back to civilization I can push all my changes back to my main repo and be good to go, SVN can’t give me that kind of work flow, so I’ve moved away from it. (I’m aware of SVK, but never could get it working well on linux/mac/and windows) At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool that fits the job, and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/4 "2007-03-12T20:49:35Z")
On 3/12/07, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git? > > Subversion has apparently become the version control system of choice > for Ruby developers --especially now that Ruby itself uses it. I > suspect that might have a lot to do with Rails and Rubyforge. Ruby > only switched over to SVN well after Rails had been using it. SVN is very much like CVS. It does have better handling of the hierarchical structure of a project in that it versions the directory hierarchy. This makes it nicer for things like Rails which make a fair use of directory hierarchies. > And > Rubyforge currently only supports SVN and CVS, which I find a bit > surprising since, from what I understand, supporting Darcs is just a > matter of having Darcs installed. And I can’t imagine Git is much > different. I think it’s a matter of the repository itself, they’d need to have more parallel copies of the code in different repository formats. > So I’m wondering, what’s so special about SVN as opposed to the other > choices? Is it because SVN is more like CVS than the other choices? > The fact that SVN isn’t distributed I would think would work against > it (though I hear SVK is supposed to deal with that). Darcs is written > in Haskell, and from the word on the street a lot of Ruby folk seem to > like Haskell. Also, Git was written by Linus Torvalds, which is about > as good as credentials can get. A good bit of it is the relationship between CVS and SVN, if you are used to CVS then SVN is a fairly easy transition. Those two are probably the most popular version systems around, so it’s also a matter of market share. Git was written as a recovery from having the BitKeeper license yanked out from under the linux project. FWIW. – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 8:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/5 "2007-03-12T20:56:35Z")
Sorry I spaced and hit send before I actually typed more than my “subject”. I was going to suggest reasons similar to those put forth by Rick. On 3/12/07, Tanner B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > internet. It’s > At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the > > > > only switched over to SVN well after Rails had been using it. And > > > like Haskell. Also, Git was written by Linus Torvalds, which is about > > > "Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand, Your actions > > > removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid > > > [http://www.tannerburson.com](http://www.tannerburson.com) – “Hey brother christian with your high and mighty errand, Your actions speak so loud, I can’t hear a word you’re saying.” -Greg Graffin (Bad Religion) ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 9:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/6 "2007-03-12T21:15:38Z")
The system that is used is a good one. I have use Visual Source Safe, CVS and for last tree and more years exclusively subversion. There is no bad system but I wouldn’t go back to previous ones. I use subversion on my work and form all my home pet projects. It is very reachable thought out various protocols, easy command line syntax, has GUI Tools, configurable from administrator’s point of view, mature system, has lot of knowledge. This can be taken as personal opinion colored by some personal affinity. To take more objective approach investigates what big source repositories sites using like Google or other Forge sites. If you have time perhaps you can try all of them and find the one that suit your needs. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 9:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/7 "2007-03-12T21:39:40Z")
Tanner B. wrote: > At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the > network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool > that fits the job, and move on. I agree - and to stress the topic further, there is this site which does a comparision of version control systems based on features: > **[Better SCM Initiative - CVS Alternativen](https://www.berlios.de/software/better-scm/)** > > Versionskontrollsysteme (oder Source Configuration Management-Systeme) ermöglichen es Entwicklern oder Autoren, die Historie des Quellcodes ihrer Projekte zu verfolgen – um ältere Versionen auszuchecken, mehrere Zweige zu pflegen und Ergebnisse... I’m using SVN at home and ClearCase at work - in regard to what I know of both of them the comparison looks sane. I did choose SVN because I’ve heard about it. And it does work for me, so I didn’t switch to something else. Well, and there is > **[Comparison of version-control software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software)** > > In software development, version control is a class of systems responsible for managing changes to computer programs or other collections of information such that revisions have a logical and consistent organization. The following tables include general and technical information on notable version control and software configuration management (SCM) software. For SCM software not suitable for source code, see Comparison of open-source configuration management software. > Table explanation > Table... I cannot answer the original posters question, so this is completely off-topic. Stefan ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 9:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/8 "2007-03-12T21:00:36Z")
To quote from the SVN webpage: Subversion is meant to be a better CVS, so it has most of CVS’s features. Generally, Subversion’s interface to a particular feature is similar to CVS’s, except where there’s a compelling reason to do otherwise. Without delving into specifics, SVN makes it a lot easier to do things than CVS does, especially administrative tasks and branching etc. It’s powerful enough to draw hardcore CVS users to it, and power/easy enough to draw hardcore VSS\* users to it. –Kyle - Sometimes those hardcore visual source safe users are companies. Whole big fat companies who makes oodles of money and don’t bat an eye at 3k/machine licensing fees. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 9:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/9 "2007-03-12T21:47:44Z")
> There is no bad system but I wouldn’t go back to previous ones. > Having used Visual Source Safe extensively I have to take exception to > that statement 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 10:55pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/10 "2007-03-12T22:55:55Z")
Trans schrieb: > Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git? > I use git for the reason of _very simple_ branching and _fast_ branch > switching. If I want to try something out, I create a new branch and > check it out. Then programming and testing a bit make commits of some > steps and if I don’t like it I can throw the complete branch away > without changing the main development stream. If it is nice I merge it > and delete the no longer needed branch. Therefore I like git. 🙂 In subversion I have never create a branch: It was to expensive for me. m2c Jan ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 11:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/11 "2007-03-12T23:27:06Z")
While distributed version control systems offer some benefits, they’re still not really mainstream. Most developers are accustomed to the way things are done in central repositories, and working offline is, with the exception of maybe a short stint on a plane or train, not that common nowadays. The benefits of darcs, etc. don’t really justify the effort that would need to be put into migrating the existent proven infrastructure and potentially alienating some people who are put of by the slightly esoteric nature of the alternatives. A clear case of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. That shouldn’t keep you from hosting your code in darcs though if you prefer. -tim ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 11:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/12 "2007-03-12T23:19:03Z")
On Mar 12, 3:46 pm, “Tanner B.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On 3/12/07, Glen H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Why not SVN? > > This is going a bit OT for ruby-talk, but I’ll bite. To be clear I’m asking why _rubyists_ in particluar choose one over the other --not so off topic. > At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the > network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool > that fits the job, and move on. So you actually use both. I hate the lack of DRY in that, but it looks like I may have to go down that road too. Thanks, T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 11:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/13 "2007-03-12T23:30:07Z")
On 3/12/07, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > push all my changes back to my main repo and be good to go, SVN can’t give > > me that kind of work flow, so I’ve moved away from it. (I’m aware of SVK, > > but never could get it working well on linux/mac/and windows) > > > > At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the > > network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool > > that fits the job, and move on. > > So you actually use both. I hate the lack of DRY in that, but it looks > like I may have to go down that road too. > Yes indeed, what is happening in the Ruby community is happening all > over the place. > SVN will simply replace CVS slowely but surely. > > Thanks, > T. Cheers Robert ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 11:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/14 "2007-03-12T23:35:08Z")
On Mar 12, 5:55 pm, Jan F. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Trans schrieb:\> Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git? > > I use git for the reason of _very simple_ branching and _fast_ branch > switching. If I want to try something out, I create a new branch and > check it out. Then programming and testing a bit make commits of some > steps and if I don’t like it I can throw the complete branch away > without changing the main development stream. If it is nice I merge it > and delete the no longer needed branch. Therefore I like git. 🙂 > > In subversion I have never create a branch: It was to expensive for me. See now this is interesting. Cause I feeling inclined toward Git for these same reasons. In fact here’s a diagram of me being torn: ``` I, Torn O ``` SVN ← --|-- → Git / Solid Darcs Faster Popular Stronger Supported Better Not that Darcs hasn’t been good to me. 🙂 T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2007, 11:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/15 "2007-03-12T23:45:08Z")
Trans wrote: > Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git? No one else has mentioned it, and I’m sure it’s not relevant for you, but TortoiseSVN is enough of a reason in itself for me to choose SVN for any project where I might have to do anything on Windows. It’s just that good. Other than that, I’m a big darcs fan too. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 12:08am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/16 "2007-03-13T00:08:11Z")
On 3/12/07, Tanner B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > me that kind of work flow, so I’ve moved away from it. (I’m aware of SVK, > but never could get it working well on linux/mac/and windows) > > At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the > network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the tool > that fits the job, and move on. Is this the only real compelling reason to switch to Darcs or similiar alternatives? For me I’m never off the net long enough for the centralized repository in svn to become a problem. Even when I’m working from a laptop most of the day, I’ll have free wifi available somewhere to sync up. - Rob ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 12:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/17 "2007-03-13T00:14:34Z")
On 12-Mar-07, at 7:07 PM, Rob S. wrote: > > normal manner, without worrying about the fact that when I DO get a > > but never could get it working well on linux/mac/and windows) > > working from a laptop most of the day, I’ll have free wifi available > > somewhere to sync up. The ability to cherry pick patches is also a real benefit. –jer ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 1:06am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/18 "2007-03-13T01:06:42Z")
On Mar 12, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Jeremy T. wrote: > > > extremely useful for me to be able to record changes, branch, > > > me that kind of work flow, so I’ve moved away from it. (I’m > > > similiar > > > alternatives? For me I’m never off the net long enough for the > > > centralized repository in svn to become a problem. Even when I’m > > > working from a laptop most of the day, I’ll have free wifi available > > > somewhere to sync up. > > The ability to cherry pick patches is also a real benefit. Is it, really? I’m not trying to be combative, I’m just wondering how often that comes up. It sounds darn cool to the geek in me, but I find myself wondering if it happens a lot. I guess I can envision a few specialized scenarios where it could be handy, but I really don’t feel I would use it much for mainstream software. For example, I really doubt there are many patches to Ruby I want to skip out on. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 12:18am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/19 "2007-03-13T00:18:37Z")
Rob S. wrote the following on 13.03.2007 00:07 : > > connection all my changes will show up as one big lump. So I use > > At work, where I work from a single workstation, always connected to the > > network, I use SVN, because it fits the environment better. Use the > > tool > > that fits the job, and move on. > > Is this the only real compelling reason to switch to Darcs or similiar > alternatives? For me I’m never off the net long enough for the > centralized repository in svn to become a problem. Even when I’m > working from a laptop most of the day, I’ll have free wifi available > somewhere to sync up. I’m currently looking at decentralized version control systems for my own needs. So it’s my early ideas on the subject, feel free to correct them… Where it can help is when a developper has a bright idea and want to implement it without impacting others. She creates a branch on her local repository to try out her idea and work with it (and can do for a longtime, merging patches from the branch she follows usually along the way). If you often have ideas being tried out, it can be a benefit because these branches would all be cluttering your common repository with a centralized system (this is why you can have lots of Linux kernel trees with git, each with its own purpose, the most popular by far being Linus Torvalds’ one). This probably is a real benefit when you have lots of really good devs all motivated to try out their ideas. This allows large group of developpers to scale. Lionel. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 1:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/20 "2007-03-13T01:22:51Z")
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 04:25:50AM +0900, Trans wrote: > Should I be using SVN rather than Darcs or Git? Only if all your co-developers are. But otherwise, probably not. > So I’m wondering, what’s so special about SVN as opposed to the other > choices? Is it because SVN is more like CVS than the other choices? Pretty much, it’s also been around longer and thus is “more mature.” Subversion is reasonably familiar to those who are used to the CVS paradigm of revision control. Although just because people are used to it, and it’s popular, doesn’t make it necessarilly good. Frankly, I’m not much of a fan of Subversion, although I much prefer it to CVS. > Also, Git was written by Linus Torvalds, which is about as good as > credentials can get. Yes, however Git was written to achieve nothing more than managing the Linux kernel. The fact that it’s applicable to other problem domains is a coincidence, not a design feature. If you’re managing a project that much resembles the Linux kernel, Git might be the right choice for you. If not, there might be an impedance mismatch. Recently I’ve become a fan of Mercurial. It has a few issues (besides being written in Python =P), but otherwise I find it to be a better match for my needs than Subversion. I also considered Git, but I found it much less approachable, although 1.5.0 is supposed to be easier to use. My biggest gripe with Subversion is that branch merges are braindead (have to specify revision boundaries), which makes branching much less useful than it could be. Two minor gripes are that the BDB backend was a mistake only recently seems to have gone away, and that operations tend to be painfully slow. In general, I’m a fan of the distributed model of development, be it with Mercurial, Git, Darcs, etc. Branching is a great concept that isn’t used effectively in CVS or Subversion becuase of branch/merge limitations. I like being able to checkout a project (often one I don’t have permissions to the central repository other than read), make a bunch of local changes _and_ local commits that don’t affect other users, then once tested perform a branch push (possibly with a pull/merge). I find that with Subversion folks are much less willing to make intermediate commits since they tend to affect all users unless a separate branch is used, and branches are difficult with Subversion. The one scenario where I find Subversion really useful is when I specifically don’t want to maintain a local copy of an entire repository, especially a large one like the Linux kernel. With Subversion, I only need a local copy of the checked out revision. That’s the one thing where I wish there was better handling in distributed revision control systems–although folks may claim that such handling would break the paradigm. [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576.md?page=2)