> "Despite all the marketing buzz related to Git, such notable open source projects as FreeBSD and LLVM continue to use Subversion as the main version control system."<p>Follow link to FreeBSD site. Last log entry, from 6 weeks ago: "Mark the repository as being converted to Git. is the last Subversion comm..."<p>Follow link to the LLVM repo - dead. That's because LLVM transitioned to GitHub last year.<p>> "About 47% of other open source projects use Subversion too (while only 38% are on Git)."<p>Follow link. Now 72% git, 23% subversion, ... and 1% are like me in using Mercurial. :( But where are the 23%? I haven't come across them.<p>> "For example, all the projects of the Apache Software Foundation are stored in a single Subversion repository"<p>Except for those that use git - <a href="https://git.apache.org/" rel="nofollow">https://git.apache.org/</a> .<p>> "Additional information: Mercurial vs Git: Why Mercurial?"<p>Links to a 2012 blog post at atlassian.com. Atlassian, notably, dropped Mercurial support a couple of year ago, causing me to find other hosting for my repos.
> Best practices to prevent tree conflicts during merge are simple: limit file and folder renames in branches, prefer to refactor code in the trunk.<p>Now every team member who was editing any of those files is boned in a way they probably can’t recover without expert help. git makes assumptions that work in practice, svn does not, and svnmerge.py conflict hell has cost hours of my life that I would dearly like to <i>extract</i> from the the creators of that pile of fun.