A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap

What was worse for me that when (I had to use SVN and) did "svn log" on a
directory, I got unexpected results. SVN doesn't show changes for all the
files below that directory when I ask for a log. That was quite a shock.

Maybe I wasn't using the correct command/option, but SVN is supposed to be
a CVS replacement and with this (when taking into account importance of
change review before and after commits) and the other SVN shortcomings
(tagging, working with branches) I don't see any real advantage over CVS +
*repository rsync* (used to work around some CVS shortcomings). The
advantages are too minuscule to give reason to switch from CVS to SVN. If
one needs to switch VC, one can as well use something that gives real
advantages (I nowadays use Mercurial, [1] shows overview of its workflow).

[1] http://edong.net/2008v1/docs/dongwoo-Hg-PDF.pdf

PS. Regarding the repository size. There was comparison of sizes a few
years ago. The updated comments at the end of the blog[2] post indicate
other VCs might all be now on par or better in this respect than SVN:
http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/2007/11/24/local-caching-a-...

[2] The generic link to the this great version control blog is:
http://blogs.gnome.org/newren/tag/version-control/

Many of the posts there are several years old, but I think still
interesting.