It seems everyone is talking SCMs these days, usually touting their favourite option while deriding everyone else's. (I exaggerate for effect.)
Years ago we mostly used CVS and were happy. Some people are still happy with it. I still have a bunch of code in it, though migrating it to something else is on my list. Why? Niceties like being able to rename a file. Or atomic changesets. Things that all the new breeds of options can do. For the tress I manage myself distributed working isn't a big issue, so they'll probably just get migrated to Subversion as the easiest option.
However I'm not really tied to any SCM. I've used at least Arch (tla), BitKeeper, ClearCase, CVS, Monotone, PVCS and Subversion for both checking out and committing files, and handful more to check out files from things I wanted to look at. The only one that is unusable is PVCS. The rest have all been fine for whatever I've used them for.
So, if I don't care about which SCM, why blog about them at all? Because I care about how they get used.
I'm a big fan of small granular commits with descriptive commit messages. Not huge big dumps of code with "check in new code" as the comment. Gah.
Take, for example, the Linux kernel. Commit messages are fairly descriptive there and if you have enough time you can read through the changelog since the last release and really know what's gone on. This is great. Also the changes are granular enough that if you hit a problem it's likely that you can narrow it down to a single commit that doesn't do a lot other than break things for you.
Not all projects I have been part of manage either of these. People often seem to view the SCM as a punishment, using it only under sufferance and as infrequently as possible, leading to large commits of many items at once. Which then means they don't see the advantages of it and are more likely to hit merge problems as the tree has changed under them. Meaning they end up hating it more and avoiding it as much as possible, making it all worse. Not good.
Or, you get people who'll commit alright, but without any sanity testing at all. Like, even a compile. What's the point? I know you can roll it back, but if you're not sure it works and haven't even compiled it, what the hell makes you think it's suitable for committing? Bah.
I can't see that my desired usage is that unreasonable. Am I missing something?