Re: GIT- Aptly named
Try setting up a Subversion server yourself,
I have. More than one, in fact.
and if you manage that you can marvel at how hard it is to do just a simple merge.
Merges in Subversion are generally trivially easy – certainly since the introduction of merge tracking, and they weren't that difficult before that. Reintegration merges require a grand total of two commands if there are no conflicts, and resolving conflicts with Subversion is certainly no more difficult, and generally more straightforward, than with git. Cross-branch cherry-picked merges are rarely any more effort. I do dozens of Subversion merges of various sorts a month.
git merges, conversely, can be quite baffling for people who don't understand git's data model and arcane command set. Just look at the unending battles over whether and when rebasing is a good idea.
git does very well at what it was created for, namely truly distributed change control (of text files; it doesn't do well with non-text formats). When used with a single centralized repository, which is how probably the vast majority of its users use it, it's simply extra complexity and obscurity for little or no benefit.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
