We are looking at moving LedgerSMB to github and their subversion support makes this decision easier in part for that reason. For example, if you are doing a lot of work on, say, PSD files, you probably don't want to use a dvcs generally as it will use needless disk space and network bandwidth for marginal benefit.Īs for your 4th point, there are plenty of times I refer people to use wget to get the latest version of a file on svn from a specific branch. Checking out a revision and working with it is far cleaner. The big problem with a DVCS is that if you are doing asset control on a lot of binary files is that when someone clones the repository they need to clone all versions of all large binary files. Mercurial also has far better audit control features than Git (it possesses a good superset of functionality here, including two different branching systems, one of which is designed to make it easy to audit long-lived branches). Mercurial at least has only a minor learning curve from SVN, while Git seems to me as if leaky abstraction is the rule. Also a point on large repositories (most of my work I prefer to do in Mercurial but there are cases where I would prefer SVN). Just because Subversion doesn't use Git's branching system and isn't distributed doesn't mean it's totally without merit, and someone so wrapped up in Git's ecosystem that they can find no merit left in Subversion is a developer who likely has an irrational approach to evaluating systems.Īgreed here. Support (and even commit, with proper settings, simply by saving). Office to trivially access things in Subversion directly via Finder/Gnome/Windows WebDAV Which, while I honestly think is mostly a antifeature, does allow random people in your Subversion repositories can be accessed trivially with WebDAV, SubversionĬan work with large files directly, Mercurial can kind of "fake out" working with themĭirectly through largefiles, and Git forces you to use a third-party tool like Git annexĤ. Game companies in particular need to do asset management. Also, svn has very good client applications which provide extremely user-friendly user interfaces. I think that svn is more stable, easy to learn/use, and not-so-complex as Git. Scale to those sizes (with significant trade-offs), but Git still cannot.ģ. Git is a newer version control system compared to that of svn. Facebook's work on Mercurial finally allows Mercurial to Not all companies want to do that, and I don't honestly blame them.Ģ. While you can *work around* that by sharding your code into tons of repositories, While this is not necessary for individual products, or even manyĬompanies, only Subversion offers the kinds of access controls that some large companies Subversion is better than Git and Mercurial in at least several key areas:ġ. I use both Git and Mercurial in my daily workflow, and only on very rare occasions touch Subversion. Small-time Mercurial contributor and Kiln founder. I wouldn't trust the engineering judgment of that developer. If any SVN dev truly believes that svn is better than Git in any technical sense then
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |