[ale] Upgrading from svn 1.6.18 to 1.7.x on Fedora

[JD]

On 06/24/2012 12:53 PM, Michael Campbell wrote:
> Out of curiosity (and this isn't directed at you, Michael (Potter)), but
> other than not being the hipster SCM-du-jour, what's wrong with svn?  Of
> course, best tool for the job and all that stuff that makes people sound
> wise, but what have people found objectionable about it?


Git is popular because it really is a good tool. For a few people, SVN has
problems that Git solves. I suspect most companies are happy with SVN, since it
blows away the prior solutions.

Git is a DVCS as opposed to a centralized VCS.

DVCS -
 Distributed
 Version
 Control
 System

I can work on any part of a project on a disconnected airplane and handle 5
different branches under GIT without needed to access some central repository.
I'm encouraged to try out new ideas in a new branch, then merge that branch back
locally.  If it works well, I can push those changes - including my test branch
- to the main company repo.  In git, any repository is just as good as any
other. Everyone has a full repository locally and only developer agreement makes
1 repository more important than any another.

**Distributed** is the key part.  This matters more when programming team isn't
located in the same building or links to the central system aren't 100% reliable
or team members need to travel.

There isn't anything wrong with SVN. Git is far from perfect.

This explains it much better than I:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/871/why-is-git-better-than-subversion