[kadoban]

> I've heard that git branching is better(?), but haven't seen that being used anywhere really.

How are you merging without branches?

Git is mostly faster and more flexible than svn, and the merging works far better. Unless svn's merging has improved in the past decade or so, which is entirely possible.

When I switched to git from svn, the main differences were: merging was usable, making new branches and switching branches and such were _instant_ instead of many seconds, and I could work more flexibly (git doesn't require being connected to the server).

[arcticgeek]

Yes, that’s actually the thing about branching in SVN. Everyone remembers how awful it was 10+ years ago under SVN 1.4 and earlier but has improved immensely since then. Combined with modern client tooling, i.e. TortoiseSVN, problems with merging are almost non-existent for a long time.

I certainly wouldn’t call SVN modern but it’s very well maintained and has never lost code on me. Many git-like features also exist now such as being able to stash some changes in order to pivot to something else for a bit. Except for the central server being a problem for some use-cases, SVN just works.

[somerando7]

I meant, using branches in a way that's "better" - whatever people who use git mean when they say that.

As I said, I haven't used SVN. It just seems like perforce and mercurial are basically "identical" for the ways I use them at least.