i am actually fine with how svn works.

hdgvhicv 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Guessing you aren’t working with hundreds of collaborators in a distributed offline system. Which is what git was for and why svn wasn’t enough for that type of use case.

▲

uwagar 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

u guessed right. im one of the world's few solo software developers left (behind).

	▲	k33n 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Keep on keeping on brother.

▲

rimliu 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

or using branches.

	▲	siva7 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		oh svn had branches. people just didn't know that they wanted a distributed cvs.

▲

gyulai 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> i am actually fine with how svn works.

I came here to say precisely that. I was on svn before git was a thing, and I've never moved off it for any projects where I get to decide such things.

To a first approximation, one could say that distributed version control is a problem nobody ever had, and nobody ever intends to have. (GitHub is the world's centralized monorepo.)

Yet, distributed version control is the majority of the reason why git's mental model is so overcomplicated.

	▲	pjc50 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Well, one person did: git exactly replicated the patch email system that Linus Torvalds was using.
	▲	skydhash 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> To a first approximation, one could say that distributed version control is a problem nobody ever had, and nobody ever intends to have. The distributed aspect is important because it let me separate how I’d like to control changes vs how it’s done in the canonical repo. I sync when I want to.