I feel I have a pretty good understanding of Git. Before I came accustomed to it around the end of 2009, however, I had never extensively used version control.
Sure, I used RCS for simple projects; I played around with CVS and bought a book about it; in 2007 I became somewhat accustomed to Mercurial, because the suckless and grml projects used them at the time.
All the time I happened to use Subversion, also for coordinating the work on the book about Z shell.
RCS was simple, but was not at all suitable for collaboration. I thought CVS and Subversion were, alas I never really understood how they worked. As in: why they worked, what was good practice, why you just couldn't seem to run it locally (without client-server architecture).
I happened to just read the release notes of the new subversion 1.7. And, reading the notes, I realize it wasn't me not being attentive or being plain stupid, it's just the interface as well as repository design that was totally messed up. For example:
Subversion 1.7 features a new subcommand called svn patch which can apply patch files in unidiff format (as produced by svn diff and other diff tools) to a working copy.
I mean – what?! This must be such a basic thing – receiving patches via a mailing list and trying to apply them, right? But apparently, there was no need for that since 2000...?
Or consider this great improvement of adding a
svn log can now print diffs
Oh, right. Diffs. In an SCM. Right. Might be of some use.
I'm glad I don't have to use plain SVN any more.