What the hell, speaking against git makes you a hipster now? I was called a hipster for proposing git over CSV and SVC.
Yes. CVS and SVN. The old and ugly ones.
If we saw the Clearcase kernel module you can be sure that that was going to be the root cause of the crash. That thing seemed to really terrible, and it wouldn't surprise me if the rest of the product was as bad.
I don't know if things have changed now, but to use Clearcase you needed a kernel module that provided a special filesystem that you did your work against.
That... Augh, that's actually kind of a good idea, even if it was before its time. But FFS...
In their respective times they were a big improvement. I believe CVS was the first client/server revision control system (why that feature was added was a horror story)
Which version control you use matters a lot less than having a sane development process.
(RCS only worked on single files, moving to CVS allowed you to maintain a tree. Before RCS I was using SCCS!)
So, not recent. But version control is one of the few infrastructural components that's allowed to have decades of churn, in my book. Software lives that long.
If not for my yammering there wouldn't be any git in use by any team there. (Only a year ago)
All the code progressed fine. git would still have improved it but nobody had bothered to switch yet.
I still use SVN from time to time with my old repos, but if given an opening, I migrate it to git without hesitation.
Git is an incredibly powerful tool for managing a set of files over time, but if you just use the handful of basic commands, then I agree that the immediate big win is branching.
Personally, I found that moving from Subversion to Git fundamentally changed my work habits (for the better). I was a lone developer at the time, so the collaboration aspect wasn't really important.
I noticed that Git made it so easy to create a repository that I put everything into version control: not just application code, but random scripts and notes.
The other gain was that I learned to work in small, focused commits, because Git is so fast that commiting often is not a burden. Once I made that change, the commit history became meaningful and useful in a way that that Subversion never was: I could quickly revert code, and look back at individual commits for information.
This!
My company uses SVN. SVN works fine so there isn't really a reason to spend the man hours migrating a crap ton of projects to to Git. Before SVN existed we used CVS and we migrated to SVN from CVS about, idk, 15-ish years ago?
That's more or less what I was getting at.