Maybe not, but "checkout" still conjures up imagery of libraries, where you get permission to use materials. You "checkout" a book in order to read it. So in that sense, it sort of makes sense to "checkout" a branch.
But imagine bringing a book to a librarian and saying "hello, I'd like to checkout this book" and the librarian says "ok" and snatches the book from your hands and throws it into a furnace and tells you not to worry because she will order a new copy to be put on the shelf.
> because she will order a new copy to be put on the shelf.
Calling git checkout is a request to check out a specific version of the repository (or individual files) from a specific point in the repository's history.
If you ask the librarian "hello, I'd like to checkout this May 23rd issue of this magazine" then you can't act surprised that the librarian returns from the library's repository with the issue of the magazine released in May 23.
In 2010, I joined a project that was still using svn; so I used git-svn and hardly even noticed svn; and my colleagues would often ask me about project history because many things that were easy to check in gut weren’t easy in svn. Also, I had offline history and everything and they didn’t but thanks to git’s compressed storage, it didn’t take more disk space.
Sure there will. I doubt many people would use SVN for a new project, but plenty of old projects still use them. It's not always simple to migrate SVN to Git especially if you want to maintain the history.
FreeBSD uses SVN, and it is unlikely that they would ever move to git or mercurial, since they try to minimize the amount of copyleft code in the base system (e.g., they moved to Clang instead of GCC a few years ago)
