Choosing Subversion Over Git and Other DVCS: Historical Reasons and Misunderstandings

Why do some companies and users still prefer Subversion over modern distributed version control systems like Git, Mercurial, or Bazaar? This article explores the reasons behind this preference, often rooted in historical use cases, personal and organizational comfort, and the perceived benefits of simpler workflows.

Historical and Personal Reasons for Preferring Subversion

Many organizations have established workflows and systems deeply rooted in Subversion (SVN), a centralized version control system. This preference is often driven by a combination of historical use and the desire to avoid changing well-established processes for "no reason."

Subversion served as a viable option for source control, particularly before the widespread adoption of Git and other decentralized systems. However, it came with its own set of limitations, such as the necessity of a central server for even basic source control tasks, the expense and slowness of branching, and the inefficiency of traversing a large repository.

SVN's reliance on a client-server model was a significant drawback. Features like massive repositories and the pervasive .svn directories made it less flexible and less efficient compared to the more distributed nature of systems like Git. The .svn directories were scattered throughout the repository, adding clutter and complexity.

Transitioning to Distributed Version Control Systems

Despite the limitations of Subversion, the transition to newer systems like Mercurial or Git can be a game-changer. For instance, around mid-2011 to 2012, when I made the switch from SVN to Mercurial, I experienced a significant change in how source control operations were performed. Mercurial, like Git, provided a distributed model that allowed for local operations and easier branching and merging.

The move to Git further transformed my experiences, providing even more robust features and better performance. One major challenge when introducing Git was the shift from SVN's sequential integer-based numbering, used for build scripts and releases, to Git's unique GUID-based identifiers. This change required a significant mindset shift, especially in terms of scripting and versioning practices. However, once these obstacles were addressed, Git enabled our team to work more efficiently and effectively.

Joel Spolsky's Perspective

Joel Spolsky, a prominent figure in software development and a co-founder of Trello and Stack Overflow, shared his thoughts on Subversion in an article where he described it as a form of "brain damage." He outlined why he moved away from Subversion to a more powerful and flexible system like Mercurial. His experience provides valuable insights into the challenges and limitations of legacy systems like Subversion.

Conclusion

While Subversion has been a reliable tool for many years, the emergence of distributed version control systems like Git, Mercurial, and Bazaar has brought numerous advantages that lacked in SVN. These systems facilitate faster and more efficient workflows, enabling teams to work more collaboratively and improve productivity. For those still relying on Subversion, it's important to consider the potential benefits of transitioning to a more modern and flexible system.