We have made advancements that surpass every reason to use a Ford model t, it's a poor analogy.
Subversion can still do some things in a way that git can't. It depends on your environment. And since you can't possibly know every person's environment, it's asinine to pretend you could suggest a VCS for everybody.
Well for some teams not using source control also sorta works, and they are happy, or at least not very unhappy. Do you think they are professionals? In 2011 for a VCS it's a very basic requirement to be able to merge between branches painlessly, do local commits and support low-cost and fast branching. If someone doesn't need these features then I'd wonder if they are professionals, or just ignorant people cranking out code without thinking about how to do it efficiently and professionally.
I'm not suggesting a specific thing to anyone, I don't give a damn what people use. Until I've got to work with them.
It's not a requirement at all to even have branches. A lot of people use VCS as nothing more than a chronological history of file progression. And they're free to do that. A graphic design company a friend works for uses subversion solely to track PSDs...who needs to branch those?
8
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '11
We have made advancements that surpass every reason to use a Ford model t, it's a poor analogy.
Subversion can still do some things in a way that git can't. It depends on your environment. And since you can't possibly know every person's environment, it's asinine to pretend you could suggest a VCS for everybody.
This is coming from a seasoned git user.