> Larry McVoy was famously wont to engage in trolling upon the Linux Kernel Mailing List, whereupon he did boast of his BitKeeper, which possessed atomic changesets. Concurrently, he did deride Subversion for its lack of the same
Subversion definitely has atomic commits. That was it's major advance over CVS.
The major difference between svn and git/hg is svn assumes a centralised repository, whereas git/hg are designed to work as distributed repositories that exchange change sets.
Turns out that you can build sophisticated work flows on top of features they added to support that distributed model - things like PR's. These things are useful even if you have a single centralised monorepositiry of the style svn insists on.
But atomic commits aren't part distributed feature set. You need them in a monorepositiry. After you've experienced your CVS repository being turned into a mess by two people doing a commit at the same time that becomes obvious.
Subversion definitely has atomic commits. That was it's major advance over CVS.
The major difference between svn and git/hg is svn assumes a centralised repository, whereas git/hg are designed to work as distributed repositories that exchange change sets.
Turns out that you can build sophisticated work flows on top of features they added to support that distributed model - things like PR's. These things are useful even if you have a single centralised monorepositiry of the style svn insists on.
But atomic commits aren't part distributed feature set. You need them in a monorepositiry. After you've experienced your CVS repository being turned into a mess by two people doing a commit at the same time that becomes obvious.