> SVN had a great feature set, and a great way to handle merges, and sane defaults.
Are you kidding? Subversion had a notoriously awful way of handling merges, which was a huge driver of people onto Git as soon as it appeared. You truly had to have been there to believe it, but in all but the simplest of merge scenarios, declaring branch bankruptcy and manually moving things back into the target branch by hand was your only real option. Early to mid 2000s, the most common team branching strategy I saw with subversion was "there's only one branch and everybody does all the development in it because god help you if you try to put it back together after branching for something".
It wasn't until well after the momentum was clearly in Git's favour and a huge chunk of the user base was gone that Subversion finally fixed it to not be complete dogshit.
it was great, it basically forced developers into the equivalent of a git rebase, maybe the cli wasn't the best, but that was a problem that tortoise solved quite well, in 2002
Are you kidding? Subversion had a notoriously awful way of handling merges, which was a huge driver of people onto Git as soon as it appeared. You truly had to have been there to believe it, but in all but the simplest of merge scenarios, declaring branch bankruptcy and manually moving things back into the target branch by hand was your only real option. Early to mid 2000s, the most common team branching strategy I saw with subversion was "there's only one branch and everybody does all the development in it because god help you if you try to put it back together after branching for something".
It wasn't until well after the momentum was clearly in Git's favour and a huge chunk of the user base was gone that Subversion finally fixed it to not be complete dogshit.