[MrRadar]

> Furthermore it's mostly a rant against subversion rather than going making any kind of argument about his assertions.

A completely misguided rant at that. The author even admits it: "To be fair, you can adopt this workflow with Subversion, using either task branches or patches..." This is exactly how my team uses Subversion (and used CVS before it; yes, we used this exact "branch per issue, code review before merge" workflow with CVS up through 2013) and we don't find the overhead of branching and merging onerous. Granted, I haven't ever tried contributing to an open source project using SVN, but arguably Git is the more-correct tool for that kind of development anyways.

[hyperpape]

We use branches with SVN, but it's slow and creates a lot of overhead on quick tasks. People who can get away with it work out of trunk and commit directly to trunk when they can.