How does merging SVN 1.8 compare to DVCS as Git & Mercurial?

Question

I asked a question 3 years ago: How and / or why is merging in Git better than in SVN?

At that time, I thought we were on SVN 1.6, but now we have reached 1.8, and it seems that merging is one of the areas on which they have done significant work.

So, in light of these changes, has SVN 1.8 caught up with the best merge and fork support in DVCS, like git?

Answer 1

SVN 1.8 seems to have slightly changed the situation where "reingtegration" is now an automatic action . You also do not need to do the dance to keep the branch alive after it has been merged again.

These were real troubles for me, and it's good that they left.

Merging SVN always has problems processing mergeinfo entries. If you do not know, these properties are added to points in the tree when the merge is performed. They record which versions are the ancestors of the merged version, so when another merge is performed, the changes in these versions are not repeated.

Unfortunately, SVN seems to be confused, and I often see that it applies the changes several times. I personally believe that there is a fundamental flaw in the way he writes down what he previously merged, but I could never understand what exactly was wrong.

The fact of branching and merging is a function of a belated and low-priority function for SVN, while this is a fundamental feature of DVCS. Branching work in SVN, I used it pretty heavily. This is definitely better than some VCS. I don’t think it will ever work as well as branching in DVCS.