[paulddraper]

Not a big surprise, considering that SVN is "CVS done right".

Compare that to Git's author: "Subversion has been the most pointless project ever started. There is no way to do cvs right."

Git and Hg (+ the many tools that surround them: GitHub, Bitbucket, Gerrit, GitLab, etc.) have a model that makes community contribution far easier than CVS and SVN.

[saurik]

The community contribution concepts in git are great, but it is confusing to then mention GitHub: their modus operandi is to provide tooling to make things easier that are only hard if you insist on misusing git as if it were Subversion (by for example having a single centralized repository with multiple committers, requiring complex and annoying access control and public key management). If someone had built tooling like GitHub around Subversion and then encouraged use of svk (note the "k"; this was a replacement client for Subversion that supported offline operation and had better merging support, but which worked with any svn server), things would have felt much more reasonable before; the irony is that if you follow the actual git workflow used by Linus for Linux (where everyone has their own repository, rather than at best their own branch and at worst trying to share master), you shouldn't even need any of that for git :/.

[paulddraper]

> actual git workflow used by Linus for Linux

When I install Linux 2.4, that centralized version comes from somewhere.

I agree that svk could have made for a serviceable GitHub, but the fact that Git had such things natively supported is a big advantage.

[saurik]

Yes, and the centralized version comes from a tree that in the Linux workflow is only able to be modified by one person. You submit patches via email or pull requests (literal ones, to pull from a repository); you don't share commit bits on a centralized repository.