They actually have a number of advantages, like visibility, atomic large-scale refactorings, better dependency management and collaboration across teams. Companies, like Facebook and Google have such big repositories. They might be more than a terabyte in size. Another problem is authentication. While git either allows a user to read or write everything, you can have permissions on a per-directory base with SVN. Git has problems with binary.
SNV supports special lock-modes for binary unmergable data, so if you have a project with lots of assets, git should not be your first choice! Ben Buchanan ok. I make some bits of the web. I think people tend to conflate git and the hosted services that became popular around the same time.
Git popularised a style of workflow with rapid, cheap branching and collaboration as a first-class citizen. From a technical point of view SVN probably could have powered the same thing, but it didn't at the critical moment when git became the new and shiny.
From what I've read it quickly played catch-up feature-wise but it never got people back once they'd switched. I've no doubt something will come along and blow git out of the water Fullstack Developer.
First of all, SVN is not dead. It is still widely used. And calling Git superior is plain stupid. Most of the companies I work for, used SVN and even my present one. Yes, I used Git in couple of companies and use it for my personal projects. But those shiny things is not necessarilly means it kills SVN! Whereas you can take git and build a centralized subversion replacement quite easily, despite being around for more than twice as long svn has never been able to get even basic merge-tracking working anywhere near as well as it does in git.
One basic reason for this is the design decision to make branches the same as directories. I don't know why they went this way originally, it certainly makes partial checkouts very simple. Unfortunately it also makes it impossible to track history properly.
Now obviously you are supposed to use subversion repository layout conventions to separate branches from regular directories, and svn uses some heuristics to make things work for the daily use cases. But all this is just papering over a very poor and limiting low-level design decision.
Being able to a do a repository-wise diff rather than directory-wise diff is basic and critical functionality for a version control system, and greatly simplifies the internals, making it possible to build smarter and useful features on top of it. You can see in the amount of effort that has been put into extending subversion, and yet how far behind it is from the current crop of modern VCSes in terms of fundamental operations like merge resolution.
Now here's my heart-felt and agnostic advice for anyone who still believes Subversion is good enough for the foreseeable future:. Subversion will never catch up to the newer breeds of VCSes that have learned from the mistakes of RCS and CVS; it is a technical impossibility unless they retool the repository model from the ground up, but then it wouldn't really be svn would it?
Regardless of how much you think you don't the capabilities of a modern VCS, your ignorance will not protect you from the Subversion's pitfalls, many of which are situations that are impossible or easily resolved in other systems.
It is extremely rare that the technical inferiority of a solution is so clear-cut as it is with svn, certainly I would never state such an opinion about win-vs-linux or emacs-vs-vi, but in this case it is so clearcut, and source control is such a fundamental tool in the developer's arsenal, that I feel it must be stated unequivocally.
Regardless of the requirement to use svn for organizational reasons, I implore all svn users not to let their logical mind construct a false belief that more modern VCSes are only useful for large open-source projects. Regardless of the nature of your development work, if you are a programmer, you will be a more effective programmer if you learn how to use better-designed VCSes, whether it be Git, Mercurial, Darcs, or many others.
Subversion is very easy to use. I have never found in the last years a problem or that something doesn't work as expected. With Git you get a more flexible VCS. You can use it the same way like SVN with a remote repository where you commit all changes. But you can also use it mostly offline and only push the changes from time to time to the remote repository. But Git is more complex and has a steeper learning curve.
I found myself in the first time committing to wrong branches, creating branches indirectly or get error messages with not much informations about the mistake and where I must search with Google to get better informations.
If you work mostly offline with your local repository you have no backup if something is lost on your local machine. With SVN you are mostly working with a remote repository which is also the same time your backup on another server Git can work in the same way but this was not the main goal of Linus to have something like SVN2.
It was designed for the Linux kernel developers and the needs of a distributed version control system. Is Git better then SVN? Developers which needs only some version history and a backup mechanism have a good and easy life with SVN. Developers working often with branches, testing more versions at the same time or working mostly offline can benefit from the features of Git. There are some very useful features like stashing not found with SVN which can make the life easier.
But on the other side not all people will need all features. So I cannot see the dead of SVN. Git needs some better documentation and the error reporting must be more helpful. Also the existing useful GUIs are only rarely.
Eric Sink from SourceGear wrote series of articles on differences between distributed and nondistributed version controls systems. He compares pros and cons of most popular version control systems.
Very interesting reading. Articles can be found on his blog, www. Read the Diffs. Git is the C of Version Control Tools. Why is Git so Fast? Mercurial, Subversion, and Wesley Snipes. I think it's fairly safe to say that amongst developers, the SVN Vs. Git argument has been raging for some time now, with everyone having their own view on which is better. This was even brought up in the of the questions during our Webinar on Subversion in and Beyond. Have a watch of his video and let us know what you think by either commenting on this blog, or by posting in our forums.
Registration is simple and will only take a moment! I have been dwelling in Git land lately, and I like it for personal projects, but I wouldn't be able to switch work projects to it yet from Subversion given the change in thinking of required from staff, without no pressing benefits. Moreover the biggest project we run in-house is extremely dependent on svn:externals which, from what I've seen so far, does not work so nicely and seamlessly in Git.
First, concurrent version control seems like an easy problem to solve. It's not at all. SVN is quite non-intuitive. Git is even worse. SVN supporters think they don't need a distributed version-control system. I thought that too. But now that we use Git exclusively, I'm a believer. When I need a branch, I branch. Sometimes it's a branch that has a corresponding branch on the server, and sometimes it does not. Not to mention all the other advantages that I'll have to go study up on thanks in part to the arcane and absurd lack of UI that is a modern version control system.
Why I think Subversion is better than Git at least for the projects I work on , mainly due to its usability, and simpler workflow:. How are we doing? Please help us improve Stack Overflow.
Take our short survey. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Collectives on Stack Overflow. Learn more. Why is Git better than Subversion? Ask Question. Asked 13 years, 3 months ago. Active 10 years ago. Viewed k times. Active Oldest Votes. Git is not better than Subversion. But is also not worse. It's different. This looks good at first, but just keep in mind the added complexity to this approach.
A Ferrari is not better than a Hyundai. Don't stare ME this way Did I say something wrong? No, you didn't. A Ferrari is impractical, expensive, thirsty, and will not get you better from A to B if you live in a city like New York or Paris - I'd prefer a Hyundai for many places, also because a scratch is much less severe. But to each his own - a Ferrari has very few advantages as well Distribution is not the only difference between Subversion and Git. It also doesn't add any complexity unless you use multiple repositories.
There are many advantages of using Git instead of Subversion, but only a few mostly insignificant disadvantages. Git is used because it's good, not shiny. My experiences with git aren't exactly a "Life changing revelation". I consider it a great tool when it works, when when it doesn't then it feels rather unpolished.
I wasn't too impressed debugging stuff like Question , and even though that is clearly an RTFM Problem: I do consider git and any other distributed vcs to be more complicated than centralized ones, and I would consider using it in centralized environments. But then again, i'm mainly a Windows developer, and the tools are still immature on Windows compared to SVN. You only analyse the distribution aspect in the comparison. I'll tell you why.
Because you only want to share code. Git and SVN are more than that, have you ever tagged, branched, merged, resolved conflicts, copy patches among branches? I think your analysis is just flawed.
In those aspects, git is a MUCH powerful tool. Not to mention things that git can, and SVN can't, like squashing, disecting, ammending, rebasing, cherry-picking, and much more things. Show 17 more comments. With Git, you can do practically anything offline, because everybody has their own repository.
Making branches and merging between branches is really easy. Drawbacks of Git: it's much harder to learn, because Git has more concepts and more commands. Although learning all of Git would be much harder, the basics are almost identical. The learning scope isn't really that steep until you get into the more advanced stuff, which SVN is simply not capable of anyway.
I think a lot of developers forget that git is lacking something like TortoiseSVN, and that not only developers use version control. I love git, but it took me about six months of daily use to really use it effectively.
That being said, I use a combination of the git shell command prompt from msysgit, git gui and gitk from msysgit, and TortoiseGit. I think TortoiseGit is great, but I don't understand why more people don't use it. I know the msysgit maintainers loath TortoiseGit for various reasons, some of them ideological, and that may have something to do with it. TortoiseGit is a well-kept secret! I agree. I honestly love git a lot more than I ever did SVN.
It just takes time to learn it. Then everything fell in place ; — Blizz. Add a comment. Here are some of the little things: Git has a 'clean' command. SVN desperately needs this command, considering how frequently it will dump extra files on your disk. Git has the 'bisect' command. It's nice. SVN creates. Every script you write, and every grep you do, will need to be written to ignore these. You also need an entire command "svn export" just to get a sane copy of your files.
At first, it sounds nice to have this freedom. But what this actually means is that there is a million different ways for your local checkout to be completely screwed up.
If the experiment worked, you bring it into the main repo without losing the individual commits , otherwise you toss it. In SVN, a successful side project is forced to enter the main project as one large chunk of code, which seriously affects future maintainability. P, M devs make lots of small commits instead of one humongous commit — much easier for code review, debugging, cherry-picking, and merging with other changes. Merge-conflict resolution happens on much smaller units instead of one huge chunk of code dumped on the repo!
In SVN, every commit goes to the server, forcing commits to be large and monolithic, in turn causing every merge to be a serious exercise rather than a couple of minutes work. P common VCS operations do not need network or server access, and are blazingly fast. This is way beyond what any other VCS can imagine doing, and is a real lifesaver for someone who picks up a complex project for maintenance or a new team member is trying to understand the existing project.
This brings in the latest changes from the server. All of those changes, in one fell swoop, are now merged into your working copy, so conflicts are very likely.
0コメント