What source control do you like?

[Bitweasil]

Any serious objections to SVN?

[neinbrucke]

go for it!

[mrb]

You know that SVN has been called "the most pointless project ever started" by Linus Torvalds. And I agree See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8

Learn a distributed VCS, seriously, it is a radical evolution in the VCS world and you will thank me later: Mercurial, Git (the 2 most popular), or Bazaar, Monotone, etc. I could not even begin to explain all the advantages, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribute ... on_control Most importantly for an open source project, it would make it infinitely easier for random developers to contribute code without you having to give them commit privileges.

I have successfully switched my company from CVS to Mercurial last year (20 developers, 1M+ lines of code, 15000 changesets) and we are very happy and reap all the benefits of it.

[neinbrucke]

i hereby uncommit my latest comment and go back to my status of 'i am not a professional coder'

[Bitweasil]

I don't quite understand how distributed version control *works* - how do you ever end up with a central repository of changes? It seems like it would require all developers to know everyone else's IPs and hostnames, with ports appropriately forwarded.

Unless "50 thousand independent forks of the project" is the goal, somehow...

[nofrillz]

Happy with SVN

[mrb]

Bitweasil: for example, designate one public repo as being the "main" one (by convention); set it up so only you can push changes to it; if you want to accept contributions from other developers, pull from them, review their changes, then push to this repo. That's just one of the many ways to work with distributed VCS.

That said you could start with SVN today given that's what you know, and migrate to a distributed VCS later. Your choice.

[MaddGamer]

I've been very happy with SVN. But for the projects that I have worked on the centralized model was a better fit than a distributed model.

[quel]

SVN is a minimum. Though, it doesn't deliver like 90% of the things it promised to have over CVS. For new projects there really isn't any choice besides something like: GIT, TLA/GNU arch, mercurial, etc.

Unless you expect to have 1 or 2 developers max and they all live in the same timezones and coordinate well....CVS/SVN are DoA.

[Picch]

I'm totally fine with SVN. I know the hip and trendy thing these days seems to be git, but I've personally never used it.