[tasuki]

Hard disagree. Subversion is awfully complex compared to git.

Yes, Subversion is initially easier to learn and use than git. It's not easier to set up as it's client-server while git is fully local. Also Subversion is an incongruous mess.

[COMMENT___]

Subversion's CLI is actually sane and much easier compared to the abomination provided by Git. Additionally, Subversion can be used entirely locally, without the need to deploy and configure any server application.

It seems that you are comparing apples to oranges. Building your own SVN server from the ground up can indeed require some effort. Doing the same for Git demands more or less the same level of effort on your part. So, I believe you are comparing building an SVN server from the ground up to something like installing Gitea or GitLab, or using Git locally.

Again, you don’t have to install an SVN server. Just run `svnadmin create REPONAME` and use the `svn` client to import your data into the repository.

[themadturk]

You don't have to set up a database for Git, either, and it works entirely locally. Git init, edit or copy in some files, git add, git commit, boom you're done. Optionally add a remote, push to the remote, pull from the remote if needed. If you're working alone, as I do, this is about 95% of the Git I need. Occasionally I clone to a different machine, or use Working Copy on iOS.

[COMMENT___]

So? You've just described exactly the what's achievable with Subversion. The only missing part is adding remote repositories.

> You don't have to set up a database for Git, either, and it works entirely locally.

What database? Subversion doesn't need any special database to work. Just the repository and its working copy. Both can be local and can be created with two commands.

[zerocrates]

You're just talking past each other. You were responding initially to another user saying Subversion needs a server, and you responded that it doesn't. A different user responded, thinking your statement meant that you thought Git needed a server.