Best Integrated Issue-Tracker For Subversion?

JobSeeker writes "Now that subversion has merge tracking my boss wants to save money by dropping our expensive commercial solution. I've pretty much convinced myself that subversion can do the job. I like it. But what about integrated issue tracking? Version control without issue tracking is only half a solution. The TortoiseSVN docs say a little about bugzilla and not much else. What ready-to-play options (commercial or open source) exist for deploying subversion on commercial projects?"

Subversion is so 2007!

[knewter]

In all seriousness though, I've ditched svn for a DVCS (git) and I'll never go back. I used svn for maybe forty projects and loved every second of it until I used git for the first time (ok, it took a lot of reading to convince myself git was worth the time investment required to grok another VCS).

Branching in git is so unbelievably natural. I've got my bash set to add (working) to the end of my prompt if I'm in a git repo and I'm on the "working" branch, for instance.

I will say, the designers on my team dislike git significantly. Their lives were almost entirely covered with "svn co/ci" and the idea of having to keep a remote tracking branch, merge a work branch with it, push the changes to the master repo...this just irritates them. But once we find a good way to appease them, it will have been so unbelievably worthwhile.

Anyway, I do believe ease of forking/branching/merging to be the killer feature of a VCS and I think git has got it completely right. I've never tried mercurial (hg) but I've heard great things about it as well...but I have zero dissatisfaction with git, and a project I'm working on has even adopted the short-hash conventions git uses with much success.

Erm, enough.

Re:Try Mercurial

[Anonymous Coward]

What in Mercurial makes it superior to git?

As a user of both, my conclusion is that git is comprehensively superior to Mercurial and Subversion. The basis of that conclusion includes:

• Git's internal structure which manages the content: blobs, trees, commits. Files are write-once, named by their SHA1 hash which also validates the contents. Tags and branches are extremely lightweight
• Git is faster and easier to combine trees.
• Git has more powerful tools.
• Mercurial struggles with filesystem representation of the repository contents across platforms, with results like this: _makefile._p_l.i _m_a_n_i_f_e_s_t.i _m_a_n_i_f_e_s_t._s_k_i_p.i _m_e_t_a.yml.i (The underscores prefix an uppercase filename).
• I don't care about Windows compatibility or functionality at all, so it is sufficient for me that Git runs incredibly quickly on linux.

Re:trac

[Myen]

Bugzilla's demo site is http://landfill.bugzilla.org/ [bugzilla.org] - go ahead and file junk bugs there, nobody would care.