# 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:** 4
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 5:51am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/61 "2007-04-03T05:51:31Z")
To comment on the original question, SVN has the following going for it: - free - cross-platform - commercial support - large installations - vast community knowledge - editor/ide/tool integration - visual UI options - good administrative tools/practices - fair security/authentication tools - written in a common and performant language - stable I’ve used VSS, ClearCase, Perforce(currently at work), CVS, SVN, Darcs, SVK, and some others I can’t remember. Perforce is very good, but expensive. SVK - i do use it but I can’t seem to get past my bias against Perl. I couldn’t even begin to look at Git because I use Windows and Mac mostly. Darcs is performant, free, and cross-platform - all good - but it doesn’t compete against the list above, at least not yet. I’m keeping my eye on it, though. I wouldn’t use VSS, CVS, or ClearCase again, given the choice. I think this list is why SVN is such an easy choice. None of these are perfect, so it comes down to your work style and project needs. Distributed systems make more sense for start-ups with all remote devs than in big brick-and-mortar enterprises with all on-site development. Perforce would be hard to beat if it were free and had a distributed option, but I don’t see the free thing happening any time soon. Find wide adoption and support of Darcs, or decentralization of Subversion, and you may find a break-away leader. Until then you need to ask “which one fits the way I/we work?”. Hope that helps. 🙂 ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 10:37am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/62 "2007-04-03T10:37:46Z")
On Apr 2, 2007, at 20:51 , Kevin W. wrote: > Perforce is very good, but > expensive. Not entirely true. To be clear: Perforce licenses are FREE for open source projects. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 2:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/63 "2007-04-03T14:13:21Z")
On 4/2/07, Kevin W. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Perforce is very good, but expensive. As Ryan said, this isn’t completely true for open source projects (although it seems a little harder for a non-GPLed project; I haven’t tried to set one up, yet). However, even for corporations, Perforce isn’t _that_ expensive compared to some of its competition and how much it provides, and the level of support is just amazing. It’s not going to be something that start-ups use first, though. If I were to use Perforce myself, though, I’d set up a public read-only SVN repository for others to access. -austin ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 3:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/64 "2007-04-03T15:02:28Z")
On 4/3/07, Kevin W. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > - fair security/authentication tools > again, given the choice. > > Hope that helps. 🙂 You did not mention mercurial which is easier to start with than darcs. It uses python which is more widespread than the thing darcs uses. Unlike git I haven’t seen a large project using mercurial (yet). However, I guess pretty much all the advantages you named above would apply to mercurial as well. There is a link to SCM comparison site earlier in the thread. From that it looks like the centralized SCMs are more space efficient in some cases (ie working on part of the repository) at the cost of being less flexible (only one central repository to which you need access all the time, harder branching). To me the move the use of distributed SCM brings complete new way of thinking about code management that things like SVK do not. All the repositories are the same, one may be “central” only because more people use it than any other. Thanks Michal ---
**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 21, 2007, 5:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/65 "2007-03-21T17:30:53Z")
On 21 mar, 16:52, Adrian H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > That’s basically it. Many thanks for sharing. Cheers, Greg ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 3:08pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/66 "2007-04-03T15:08:30Z")
Michal S. wrote: > You did not mention mercurial which is easier to start with than > darcs. It uses python which is more widespread than the thing darcs > uses. > Unlike git I haven’t seen a large project using mercurial (yet). Mercurial was choosed by OpenSolaris, but I don’t know if it’s already used or not. Source : [http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/](http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/) ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 4:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/67 "2007-04-03T16:41:12Z")
Jan F. wrote: > Trans schrieb: > In subversion I have never create a branch: It was to expensive for me. Well, it is cheap in git as it is in svn, the differences are not there… The distributed/decentralised model is the biggest difference. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 4:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/68 "2007-04-03T16:43:41Z")
Ryan D. wrote: > Not entirely true. To be clear: Perforce licenses are FREE for open > source projects. But having to renew the licenses every year is a PITA. (been there, done that for 5 years and saw the process getting more complicated over the years). In the end, I switched over to Arch when they asked me to _fax_ both the GPL and BSD license to them to get my renewed license… Nuff said. I’ve switched to Mercurial and won’t come back ever to centralised systems like svn. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 6:39pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/69 "2007-04-03T18:39:40Z")
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:41:14 +0900, Ollivier R. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Jan F. wrote: > > > Trans schrieb: > > In subversion I have never create a branch: It was to expensive for me. > > Well, it is cheap in git as it is in svn, the differences are not > there… In my experience that isn’t really true – git has much better merge tracking than svn, so repeated merges on long-lived branches are substantially less painful with git. -mental ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 5:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/70 "2007-04-03T17:17:23Z")
Ollivier R. wrote: > Well, it is cheap in git as it is in svn, the differences are not > there… > The main difference is for me that in svn the branch is a part of the > hole history of the repository while in git a can simple delete a branch > and it is not any more existent. Therefore I use it in many cases when I > don’t know if an idea is best way to solve a particular problem. If I > want to do it this way, I merge it to the master and delete the > temporary branch. Otherwise I delete the branch also and don’t see it > again. This is my definition of cheap: temporary branches. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 7:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/71 "2007-04-03T19:40:47Z")
On Apr 3, 2007, at 05:13 , Austin Z. wrote: > It’s not going to be something that start-ups use first, though. If I > were to use Perforce myself, though, I’d set up a public read-only SVN > repository for others to access. That is hard to do actually. At least, I haven’t found any scripts that do a good job of it (esp with continual/periodic updates). I’m finishing up the last of the edge cases on my script to do just that and will be releasing it “soon”. I think all I have left is to delete empty dirs in svn (which at this point I may just do by hand because it isn’t THAT big of a deal). If you know of any good scripts for this, I’d love to look at them. ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 7:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/72 "2007-04-03T19:37:46Z")
On Apr 3, 2007, at 07:43 , Ollivier R. wrote: > Ryan D. wrote: > > > Not entirely true. To be clear: Perforce licenses are FREE for open > > source projects. > > But having to renew the licenses every year is a PITA. It isn’t _that_ much of a PITA for the benefits of using perforce for free. > (been there, done > that for 5 years and saw the process getting more complicated over the > years). No, it is getting easier. I’ve been running my perforce server for about 8 years running now and while for a while they were indeed requiring a FAX of the license application form their lawyers (behind the times as lawyers always seem to be) finally realized the benefits of the electronic signature act and accept email. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2007, 10:40am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/73 "2007-04-04T10:40:49Z")
“Austin Z.” [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: > were to use Perforce myself, though, I’d set up a public read-only SVN > repository for others to access. I saw an interesting article about bazaar, which is meant to be a replacement for subversion that is designed specifically for open source type projects which have many different contributors/developers and is supposed to be easier and more intuitive than subversion. It sounded interesting. 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:** [April 4, 2007, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/74 "2007-04-04T14:38:57Z")
MenTaLguY wrote: > In my experience that isn’t really true – git has much better merge > tracking than svn, so repeated merges on long-lived branches are > substantially less painful with git. Yes, this is a major drawback of current svn (although svk sorta fixes that problem). svn has more problems anyway 🙂 Disclaimer: I’m the author of a paper on using dVCS on FreeBSD with focus on Arch & Mercurial. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2007, 2:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/75 "2007-04-04T14:40:09Z")
Ryan D. wrote: -\> I’ve been running my perforce server for about 8 years running now > and while for a while they were indeed requiring a FAX of the license > application form their lawyers (behind the times as lawyers always > seem to be) finally realized the benefits of the electronic signature > act and accept email. That’s good for them. I got hooked on dVCS when I switched to Arch then Mercurial so any centralised VCS is out in my book (and P4 is even more centralised than svn :-)). ---
**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:** [April 3, 2007, 8:32pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/76 "2007-04-03T20:32:53Z")
On 4/3/07, Ryan D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > If you know of any good scripts for this, I’d love to look at them. I’m not actually using Perforce at all for my OSS work, so I don’t have anything, sadly. I like hearing what you’re saying, though, and it’ll be worth looking at when you release it. -austin ---
**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:** [April 4, 2007, 8:55pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/77 "2007-04-04T20:55:54Z")
On Apr 4, 2007, at 05:40 , Ollivier R. wrote: > more > centralised than svn :-)). I’m totally fine with centralized VCS. I’m even more fine with software that doesn’t corrupt repositories, is easy to back up, easy to understand, and works really well / stays out of my way. Perforce is rock solid and has a long standing rock solid history. I _have_ to have 100% complete trust in my VCS and its backups. I simply can’t say that about much of any other VCS out there (except the nice stable old ones, like CVS). Too new. Too buggy. Too experimental. Too full of agendas. I just want to get work done. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2007, 3:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/78 "2007-04-04T15:10:18Z")
On 4-Apr-07, at 8:38 AM, Ollivier R. wrote: > MenTaLguY wrote: > > > In my experience that isn’t really true – git has much better merge > > tracking than svn, so repeated merges on long-lived branches are > > substantially less painful with git. > > Yes, this is a major drawback of current svn (although svk sorta fixes > that problem). svn has more problems anyway 🙂 > > Disclaimer: I’m the author of a paper on using dVCS on FreeBSD with > focus on Arch & Mercurial. Is this paper available anywhere? Mike – Mike S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [http://www.stok.ca/~mike/](http://www.stok.ca/~mike/) The “`Stok’ disclaimers” apply. ---
**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:** [April 4, 2007, 9:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/79 "2007-04-04T21:09:58Z")
> I’m totally fine with centralized VCS. > > I’m even more fine with software that doesn’t corrupt repositories, > is easy to back up, easy to understand, and works really well / stays > out of my way. Perforce is rock solid and has a long standing rock > solid history. I _have_ to have 100% complete trust in my VCS and its > backups. I simply can’t say that about much of any other VCS out > there (except the nice stable old ones, like CVS). Too new. Too > buggy. Too experimental. Too full of agendas. I just want to get work > done. To me, that only sounds like an argument against using Visual Source Safe 😉 As far as backing up an SVN repository (especially if it’s using the file system instead of BDB) tar does a pretty good job. For the completely paranoid people that are afraid their backup will be useless in 5 years because software will no longer be available, or the current version won’t read the old version, the svn source code is small enough to be included on the backup disc. ---
**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:** [April 5, 2007, 1:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576/80 "2007-04-05T01:12:23Z")
On Apr 4, 2007, at 12:09 , Kyle S. wrote: > To me, that only sounds like an argument against using Visual > Source Safe 😉 Well, that’s just a given. > As far as backing up an SVN repository (especially if it’s using the > file system instead of BDB) tar does a pretty good job. I think this is part of the problem. I don’t want to think about what storage mechanism it uses (past an evaluation stage at least). I don’t want to have to think: Did they test this storage format as well as the previous? What are the repercussions of using this over the other (eg http vs svn protocol)? I just want it to work so I can do the same. I’ve seen too much SVN corruption already to trust it. [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576.md?page=3) [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/why-svn/88576.md?page=5)