Apache Subversion vs. Mercurial

It's a relatively simple version control system so it works great for an individual or small team (less than 10 people). But if you have a medium to large team, especially one with members distributed over a large geographic area, or one where individuals need to be able to work "offline" without access to a central server, Apache Subversion will likely not be the best choice.

Also, if you're maintaining an open-source project where outside people will be interacting with your code repository, git is probably a better choice because it's becoming the de-facto standard these days and what most developers are familiar with.

Incentivized

If you generally think that to develop software you have to choose one repository, then in my opinion you have to choose between Mercurial and Git, there is not other solution. Mercurial also has a good merge tool which i can recommend. This gives you the flexibility to push just the "part of the feature", and is much better suited in the case where the "part of feature" and some other "part of the feature" both contain changes to the same file.

Incentivized

• Revision control done properly - you have end to end visibility of all changes in the project.
• Conflict resolution - visually highlighting the differences helps to track down the problem.
• Being open source and very popular.
• We are using SVN hosted in our network - it is very stable, we had almost zero downtime in 4 years.
• Rollbacks are made simple and easy to use.

Incentivized

• Branch
• Distributed architecture
• Stable
• Platform independent

Incentivized

• Distributed development - I've never worked in an environment where distributed development (developers widely scattered geographically) was a factor, but that's why git exists.
• Merging - Merging of code from one branch to another can be painful, especially if it's not done frequently. (On the other hand, doing merges is one of the reasons I get a nice salary, so I can't complain too much!)
• Acceptance - Let's face it, git is what "all the cool kids are using." If you've got a bunch of developers fresh out of school, they'll probably know git and not Subversion.

Incentivized

• Integration with visual studio
• More integrated tools
• When I install Mercurial I always have to do a hard restart of my computer.

Incentivized

While there are interesting alternatives, such a GIT, Subversion has been a breath of fresh air compared to its predecessors like CVS or Microsoft Source Safe (now called Team Foundation Server). Its ease of use and high adoption rate is going to keep me using this product for years to come.

Git has become the new standard of version control, with its support for distributed design. As a tool to manage and control versions, Subversion does it well, but Git is the future.

Incentivized

When we chose Mercurial it was more popular from perspectives than Git and we have too many problems with the Microsoft team foundation solution. We also want to move from a centralized version of source control to a distributed one. We also were working more and more via the Internet with our source control so distributed version was only solution.

Incentivized

• Subversion helps us feel secure in maintaining access to all of our product code, both current and historical.
• Being free and open source makes it an even better "investment".

Incentivized

• Improve time in merging
• Branching enables us to keep separate version per customer
• Good tool for programmers is sometimes a reason to stay

Incentivized