www/bitmover-svn.html - subversion - Git at Google

 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
 <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
 <head>
 <style type="text/css"> /* <![CDATA[ */
   @import "branding/css/tigris.css";
   @import "branding/css/inst.css";
   /* ]]> */</style>
 <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print"
   href="branding/css/print.css"/>
 <script type="text/javascript" src="branding/scripts/tigris.js"></script>
 <title>Debunking BitMover's Subversion Comparison</title>
 </head>

 <body>
 <div class="app">

 <h2>Debunking BitMover's Subversion Comparison</h2>

 <h3>Summary</h3>

 <p>BitMover, Inc. offers a comparison between BitKeeper (their main
 product) and Subversion, at</p>

 <blockquote>
 <p><a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.Subversion.html"
            >http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.Subversion.html</a></p>
 </blockquote>

 <p>BitMover's comparison contains various false statements about
 Subversion, and some misleading statements.  Below, we analyze
 BitMover's page and set the record straight about Subversion.  The
 entire relevant content of the BitMover page is quoted below, as it
 looked on 2 July 2004.  We've omitted only extraneous things like
 navigation links and the endorsement quote at the top of the
 page.</p>

 <p>Please note that this response is strictly about Subversion.  We
 have no complaints about BitKeeper as a piece of software; we've heard
 mainly good things about it, though we can't try it ourselves because
 of its <a href="#licensing">license situation</a>.</p>

 <p>BitMover's text below is quoted in red italics where we feel it's
 in error, and green italics otherwise.  Our annotations are in regular
 black text.</p>

 <h3>The Response</h3>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: red"><i>Subversion is a new system
    which is supposed to replace CVS. Unfortunately, Subversion shares
    many of CVS' problems and introduced some of its own
    problems:</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <!-- Commenting out this minor complaint for now:

 <p>I like how they subtly imply that Subversion <i>only</i> adds new
 problems on top of CVS's, without solving any problems.  It solved
 many, of course, and while this quote doesn't explicitly deny that,
 it's worded in a very misleading way.</p>

 <p>Moving on to more substantive stuff:</p>

 -->

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: red"><i>Subversion uses a binary file format for
    your revision control data and metadata and if that format gets
    corrupted you are out of luck, your whole team comes to a
    halt.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>That bit about the binary format is classic <a
 href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html">FUD</a>.  It's
 quite true that Subversion uses a binary file format, but think about
 it: BitMover is basically saying that databases are a bad idea, since
 virtually all modern databases use a binary format.  Sure, if anything
 happens to those files, you're out of luck, assuming you have no
 backup.  So, does this mean no one should ever use a database?</p>

 <p>Anyone who runs, say, Oracle, MySQL, Postgres, or another database
 system should be able to see the silliness here right away.
 Furthermore, it's clearly the case that if BitKeeper's data storage
 format got corrupted severely enough, your whole team would come to a
 halt too, at least for as long as it took to get everything fixed,
 restored from backup, whatever.  Not so different from Subversion,
 really.</p>

 <p>There are database management issues to administering a Subversion
 repository, of course, issues which CVS does not have.  If this is
 BitMover's complaint, then they should say so, rather than making a
 meaninglessly broad generalization.  (Note that Subversion now offers
 a non-database back end, for those who don't want the overhead of
 administering a database.  This is a fairly recent development, and
 it's likely that BitMover simply hadn't heard about it yet when they
 wrote their page.)</p>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: green"><i>Subversion has a single repository model,
    i.e., client/server. Each work area is clear text only which means
    no revision control in the work area during
    development.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>This is basically true, though note that this way seems to work
 fine for a lot of people.  Strictly speaking, Subversion has exactly
 one level of revision control in the working copy, since there are
 pristine base texts of every file present.  One can locally view one's
 changes, revert them, or save them and then revert, all without a
 network connection.</p>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: red"><i>No staging areas to protect the main source
    tree. With Subversion, everyone checks into the same place and if
    someone breaks the tree, it's broken for everyone. With BitKeeper,
    you can put a staging area between each group of developers and the
    main integration tree, thereby protecting the main tree from bad
    checkins. Anyone who has lived through a change that broke the
    build can see the value of staging areas.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>False and FUD.</p>

 <p>Having a staging area is a matter of how the project organizes its
 repository and moderates its commits.  The fact that some projects
 choose to use their main development trunk <i>as</i> their staging
 area, and release from branches, is a matter of policy, not of
 technical limitations.  If you want to insert an extra level of
 staging area, Subversion supports that just fine.</p>

 <p>Now, there might be a kernel of a real complaint here, which is
 that Subversion doesn't have first-class changeset swapping, and
 therefore merges from one branch to another (say, from staging to
 live) don't preserve as much history as they could.  However,
 BitMover's text goes far beyond that simple, circumscribed complaint.
 And since they make the merge complaint separately later anyway, they
 either thought they were saying something different here, or they're
 making the same claim twice, for the sake of inflating their page.</p>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: green"><i>Subversion loses information every time
    there is parallel development because you are forced to merge
    before you check in if someone else checked in first. The state of
    your workspace before the merge is lost forever. Another way to say
    this is that if there is N-way parallel development, Subversion
    loses N-1 events.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>As worded, this is not quite true.  But probably what they meant to
 say was "you are forced to merge before you check in if someone else
 checked in changes <i>to the same files</i> first."  Then it would be
 true.</p>

 <p>So how important is it?  It depends whom you ask.  BitMover
 probably has in mind the "star merge" work style that has developed in
 the Linux family of OSs, where there is never any expectation that all
 workspaces will converge onto a single canonical form.  It's not about
 how far behind you are, but about how different you wish to remain;
 less about merging than about cherry-picking.  There are Subversion
 users who ask for this.  We usually point them to <a
 href="http://svk.elixus.org/">SVK</a>, which is based on Subversion
 and supports this style of development, or to <a
 href="http://www.gnuarch.org/">Arch</a>, an open-source revision
 control system unrelated to Subversion.  But some others do not find
 this a compelling feature; see <a
 href="http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot" >Greg
 Hudson's explanation</a> why not.</p>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: green"><i>Merging in Subversion is no better than
    CVS, i.e., primitive at best.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>This is basically true.  Subversion's merging <i>interface</i> is
 better than CVS's, but the underlying operation leads to the same
 result as in CVS.  Better merge support is on Subversion's long-term
 todo list.</p>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: red"><i>Branch management in Subversion is a
    nightmare.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>This is false, at least insofar as it means anything at all.
 Without more technical substance to respond to, it's hard to know what
 to do with such a claim; they don't say anything more concrete than
 "nightmare", unfortunately.</p>

 <p>Branch management is actually one of Subversion's strengths.  In
 Subversion, branches are first class, versioned objects, just like
 regular paths.  They can be copied, renamed, deleted, and
 resurrected&nbsp;&mdash;&nbsp;and people do these things all the time.
 Perhaps BitMover was really talking about merging?  But again, they
 make the merging complaint elsewhere, so this item must presumably be
 about something else.</p>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: red"><i>Subversion has no integrity checker which
    means files can be silently corrupted and you will never know until
    you try and roll backwards.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>False.  Subversion ships with an integrity checker
 (<tt>svnadmin&nbsp;verify</tt>).  It also attaches a checksum to every
 revision of every file.  It verifies these checksums automatically at
 every opportunity where it wouldn't have a serious impact on
 performance; furthermore, it offers you the ability to paranoidly
 check integrity even <i>more</i> often, if you want to, via the
 abovementioned command.  So we really don't know what they're trying
 to say here.</p>

    <blockquote>
    <p style="color: red"><i>Subversion has only weak rename support,
    that's something that is inherent in all centralized
    systems.</i></p>
    </blockquote>

 <p>It's true that Subversion has weak rename support (work is under
 way to fix this).  We don't see any reason why this is inherent in
 centralized systems, or even why it has anything to do with
 centralization or lack of same.  It sounds as if BitMover is trying to
 imply that Subversion, due to its design, simply <i>can't</i> have
 good rename support.  That's the more serious charge here, and we
 believe it's totally bogus.</p>

 <h3>Conclusion:</h3>

 <p>What's really going on is that BitKeeper has just one or two solid
 complaints to make: "Subversion has only primitive merge capability",
 and possibly "Subversion doesn't do decentralized versioning."</p>

 <p>While these are true, it seems like BitMover is attempting to say
 each one multiple times, to have a longer itemized list of
 deficiencies in Subversion.  If we ever write up our own comparison
 between Subversion and BitKeeper, we'll avoid that sort of inflation.
 Unfortunately, we can't easily make such a comparison, because
 BitMover, Inc changed its license to prevent free software developers
 who work on competing products (such as Subversion) from using
 BitKeeper.</p>

 <a name="licensing"></a>
 <h3>BitKeeper's Licensing Situation:</h3>

 <p>Before they changed their license, anyone could use BitKeeper for a
 free software project (with a few minor caveats).  Although BitKeeper
 was not "free" or "open source" in any important sense, since BitMover
 still retained strong intellectual property rights over the code, it
 did mean that free software developers could try it out and learn from
 it.</p>

 <p>Then BitMover added a clause to their license, ending this
 availability for Subversion developers and others:</p>

 <pre>
     (d)  Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
          License is not available to You if You and/or your
          employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a
          product which contains substantially similar capabil-
          ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
          able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
          Software.
 </pre>

 <p>(We'd include a reference to the full license here, but it appears
 one must fill out a download form even to get to the license's
 <i>text</i>, and that's a little more trouble than we're willing to go
 through.)</p>

 <p>Larry McVoy, founder of BitMover, <a
 href="http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&amp;m=103384262016750&amp;w=2"
 >confirmed</a> that the new clause prohibits Subversion developers
 from trying BitKeeper at no charge.  Of course, Subversion developers
 are free to purchase a license, but that is not a realistic option for
 most of them.</p>

 You can read more about the BitKeeper license controversy at these links:

 <ul>
 <li><a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2107"
             >http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2107</a>
 </li>
 <li><a href="http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/bk_suitability.html"
             >http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/bk_suitability.html</a>
 </li>
 <li><a href="http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/relicensing_bk.html"
             >http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/relicensing_bk.html</a>
 </li>
 </ul>

 <p>This is why we cannot make our own page comparing Subversion and
 BitKeeper.  Of course, BitMover employees are free to download and
 install Subversion any time, and we encourage them to do so.</p>

 </div>
 </body>
 </html>
	<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
	"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
	<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
	<head>
	<style type="text/css"> /* <![CDATA[ */
	@import "branding/css/tigris.css";
	@import "branding/css/inst.css";
	/* ]]> */</style>
	<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="print"
	href="branding/css/print.css"/>
	<script type="text/javascript" src="branding/scripts/tigris.js"></script>
	<title>Debunking BitMover's Subversion Comparison</title>
	</head>

	<body>
	<div class="app">

	<h2>Debunking BitMover's Subversion Comparison</h2>

	<h3>Summary</h3>

	<p>BitMover, Inc. offers a comparison between BitKeeper (their main
	product) and Subversion, at</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p><a href="http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.Subversion.html"
	>http://www.bitkeeper.com/Comparisons.Subversion.html</a></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>BitMover's comparison contains various false statements about
	Subversion, and some misleading statements. Below, we analyze
	BitMover's page and set the record straight about Subversion. The
	entire relevant content of the BitMover page is quoted below, as it
	looked on 2 July 2004. We've omitted only extraneous things like
	navigation links and the endorsement quote at the top of the
	page.</p>

	<p>Please note that this response is strictly about Subversion. We
	have no complaints about BitKeeper as a piece of software; we've heard
	mainly good things about it, though we can't try it ourselves because
	of its <a href="#licensing">license situation</a>.</p>

	<p>BitMover's text below is quoted in red italics where we feel it's
	in error, and green italics otherwise. Our annotations are in regular
	black text.</p>

	<h3>The Response</h3>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: red"><i>Subversion is a new system
	which is supposed to replace CVS. Unfortunately, Subversion shares
	many of CVS' problems and introduced some of its own
	problems:</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<!-- Commenting out this minor complaint for now:

	<p>I like how they subtly imply that Subversion <i>only</i> adds new
	problems on top of CVS's, without solving any problems. It solved
	many, of course, and while this quote doesn't explicitly deny that,
	it's worded in a very misleading way.</p>

	<p>Moving on to more substantive stuff:</p>

	-->

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: red"><i>Subversion uses a binary file format for
	your revision control data and metadata and if that format gets
	corrupted you are out of luck, your whole team comes to a
	halt.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>That bit about the binary format is classic <a
	href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/FUD.html">FUD</a>. It's
	quite true that Subversion uses a binary file format, but think about
	it: BitMover is basically saying that databases are a bad idea, since
	virtually all modern databases use a binary format. Sure, if anything
	happens to those files, you're out of luck, assuming you have no
	backup. So, does this mean no one should ever use a database?</p>

	<p>Anyone who runs, say, Oracle, MySQL, Postgres, or another database
	system should be able to see the silliness here right away.
	Furthermore, it's clearly the case that if BitKeeper's data storage
	format got corrupted severely enough, your whole team would come to a
	halt too, at least for as long as it took to get everything fixed,
	restored from backup, whatever. Not so different from Subversion,
	really.</p>

	<p>There are database management issues to administering a Subversion
	repository, of course, issues which CVS does not have. If this is
	BitMover's complaint, then they should say so, rather than making a
	meaninglessly broad generalization. (Note that Subversion now offers
	a non-database back end, for those who don't want the overhead of
	administering a database. This is a fairly recent development, and
	it's likely that BitMover simply hadn't heard about it yet when they
	wrote their page.)</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: green"><i>Subversion has a single repository model,
	i.e., client/server. Each work area is clear text only which means
	no revision control in the work area during
	development.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>This is basically true, though note that this way seems to work
	fine for a lot of people. Strictly speaking, Subversion has exactly
	one level of revision control in the working copy, since there are
	pristine base texts of every file present. One can locally view one's
	changes, revert them, or save them and then revert, all without a
	network connection.</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: red"><i>No staging areas to protect the main source
	tree. With Subversion, everyone checks into the same place and if
	someone breaks the tree, it's broken for everyone. With BitKeeper,
	you can put a staging area between each group of developers and the
	main integration tree, thereby protecting the main tree from bad
	checkins. Anyone who has lived through a change that broke the
	build can see the value of staging areas.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>False and FUD.</p>

	<p>Having a staging area is a matter of how the project organizes its
	repository and moderates its commits. The fact that some projects
	choose to use their main development trunk <i>as</i> their staging
	area, and release from branches, is a matter of policy, not of
	technical limitations. If you want to insert an extra level of
	staging area, Subversion supports that just fine.</p>

	<p>Now, there might be a kernel of a real complaint here, which is
	that Subversion doesn't have first-class changeset swapping, and
	therefore merges from one branch to another (say, from staging to
	live) don't preserve as much history as they could. However,
	BitMover's text goes far beyond that simple, circumscribed complaint.
	And since they make the merge complaint separately later anyway, they
	either thought they were saying something different here, or they're
	making the same claim twice, for the sake of inflating their page.</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: green"><i>Subversion loses information every time
	there is parallel development because you are forced to merge
	before you check in if someone else checked in first. The state of
	your workspace before the merge is lost forever. Another way to say
	this is that if there is N-way parallel development, Subversion
	loses N-1 events.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>As worded, this is not quite true. But probably what they meant to
	say was "you are forced to merge before you check in if someone else
	checked in changes <i>to the same files</i> first." Then it would be
	true.</p>

	<p>So how important is it? It depends whom you ask. BitMover
	probably has in mind the "star merge" work style that has developed in
	the Linux family of OSs, where there is never any expectation that all
	workspaces will converge onto a single canonical form. It's not about
	how far behind you are, but about how different you wish to remain;
	less about merging than about cherry-picking. There are Subversion
	users who ask for this. We usually point them to <a
	href="http://svk.elixus.org/">SVK</a>, which is based on Subversion
	and supports this style of development, or to <a
	href="http://www.gnuarch.org/">Arch</a>, an open-source revision
	control system unrelated to Subversion. But some others do not find
	this a compelling feature; see <a
	href="http://web.mit.edu/ghudson/thoughts/bitkeeper.whynot" >Greg
	Hudson's explanation</a> why not.</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: green"><i>Merging in Subversion is no better than
	CVS, i.e., primitive at best.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>This is basically true. Subversion's merging <i>interface</i> is
	better than CVS's, but the underlying operation leads to the same
	result as in CVS. Better merge support is on Subversion's long-term
	todo list.</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: red"><i>Branch management in Subversion is a
	nightmare.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>This is false, at least insofar as it means anything at all.
	Without more technical substance to respond to, it's hard to know what
	to do with such a claim; they don't say anything more concrete than
	"nightmare", unfortunately.</p>

	<p>Branch management is actually one of Subversion's strengths. In
	Subversion, branches are first class, versioned objects, just like
	regular paths. They can be copied, renamed, deleted, and
	resurrected — and people do these things all the time.
	Perhaps BitMover was really talking about merging? But again, they
	make the merging complaint elsewhere, so this item must presumably be
	about something else.</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: red"><i>Subversion has no integrity checker which
	means files can be silently corrupted and you will never know until
	you try and roll backwards.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>False. Subversion ships with an integrity checker
	(<tt>svnadmin verify</tt>). It also attaches a checksum to every
	revision of every file. It verifies these checksums automatically at
	every opportunity where it wouldn't have a serious impact on
	performance; furthermore, it offers you the ability to paranoidly
	check integrity even <i>more</i> often, if you want to, via the
	abovementioned command. So we really don't know what they're trying
	to say here.</p>

	<blockquote>
	<p style="color: red"><i>Subversion has only weak rename support,
	that's something that is inherent in all centralized
	systems.</i></p>
	</blockquote>

	<p>It's true that Subversion has weak rename support (work is under
	way to fix this). We don't see any reason why this is inherent in
	centralized systems, or even why it has anything to do with
	centralization or lack of same. It sounds as if BitMover is trying to
	imply that Subversion, due to its design, simply <i>can't</i> have
	good rename support. That's the more serious charge here, and we
	believe it's totally bogus.</p>

	<h3>Conclusion:</h3>

	<p>What's really going on is that BitKeeper has just one or two solid
	complaints to make: "Subversion has only primitive merge capability",
	and possibly "Subversion doesn't do decentralized versioning."</p>

	<p>While these are true, it seems like BitMover is attempting to say
	each one multiple times, to have a longer itemized list of
	deficiencies in Subversion. If we ever write up our own comparison
	between Subversion and BitKeeper, we'll avoid that sort of inflation.
	Unfortunately, we can't easily make such a comparison, because
	BitMover, Inc changed its license to prevent free software developers
	who work on competing products (such as Subversion) from using
	BitKeeper.</p>

	<a name="licensing"></a>
	<h3>BitKeeper's Licensing Situation:</h3>

	<p>Before they changed their license, anyone could use BitKeeper for a
	free software project (with a few minor caveats). Although BitKeeper
	was not "free" or "open source" in any important sense, since BitMover
	still retained strong intellectual property rights over the code, it
	did mean that free software developers could try it out and learn from
	it.</p>

	<p>Then BitMover added a clause to their license, ending this
	availability for Subversion developers and others:</p>

	<pre>
	(d) Notwithstanding any other terms in this License, this
	License is not available to You if You and/or your
	employer develop, produce, sell, and/or resell a
	product which contains substantially similar capabil-
	ities of the BitKeeper Software, or, in the reason-
	able opinion of BitMover, competes with the BitKeeper
	Software.
	</pre>

	<p>(We'd include a reference to the full license here, but it appears
	one must fill out a download form even to get to the license's
	<i>text</i>, and that's a little more trouble than we're willing to go
	through.)</p>

	<p>Larry McVoy, founder of BitMover, <a
	href="http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103384262016750&w=2"
	>confirmed</a> that the new clause prohibits Subversion developers
	from trying BitKeeper at no charge. Of course, Subversion developers
	are free to purchase a license, but that is not a realistic option for
	most of them.</p>

	You can read more about the BitKeeper license controversy at these links:

	<ul>
	<li><a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2107"
	>http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2107</a>
	</li>
	<li><a href="http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/bk_suitability.html"
	>http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/bk_suitability.html</a>
	</li>
	<li><a href="http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/relicensing_bk.html"
	>http://better-scm.berlios.de/bk/relicensing_bk.html</a>
	</li>
	</ul>

	<p>This is why we cannot make our own page comparing Subversion and
	BitKeeper. Of course, BitMover employees are free to download and
	install Subversion any time, and we encourage them to do so.</p>

	</div>
	</body>
	</html>