Subversion vs. Git: Myths and Facts (opens in new tab)

> "Despite all the marketing buzz related to Git, such notable open source projects as FreeBSD and LLVM continue to use Subversion as the main version control system."

Follow link to FreeBSD site. Last log entry, from 6 weeks ago: "Mark the repository as being converted to Git. is the last Subversion comm..."

Follow link to the LLVM repo - dead. That's because LLVM transitioned to GitHub last year.

> "About 47% of other open source projects use Subversion too (while only 38% are on Git)."

Follow link. Now 72% git, 23% subversion, ... and 1% are like me in using Mercurial. :( But where are the 23%? I haven't come across them.

> "For example, all the projects of the Apache Software Foundation are stored in a single Subversion repository"

Except for those that use git - https://git.apache.org/ .

> "Additional information: Mercurial vs Git: Why Mercurial?"

Links to a 2012 blog post at atlassian.com. Atlassian, notably, dropped Mercurial support a couple of year ago, causing me to find other hosting for my repos.

> Best practices to prevent tree conflicts during merge are simple: limit file and folder renames in branches, prefer to refactor code in the trunk.

Now every team member who was editing any of those files is boned in a way they probably can’t recover without expert help. git makes assumptions that work in practice, svn does not, and svnmerge.py conflict hell has cost hours of my life that I would dearly like to extract from the the creators of that pile of fun.

I like how unbiased this article is