Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Subversion Still Beats Git (via abcphp.com)

brandonsavage.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 16 posts

Re: Why Subversion Still Beats Git (via abcphp.com)

#3

Post by mrduncan »

Corporate America needs a centralized version control system. Subversion still offers this: Subversion centralizes the repository and simply checks out a working copy (versus Git, which gives you a complete repository). Corporate America still needs to have cannonical version numbers, and the ability to see the progress of a product over time as a single line – not a bunch of branches and independent repositories.

While I think I understand what he is saying, there isn't any reason why Git can't be used just like SVN (other than checking out only the latest version, which I wouldn't argue is an advantage). Just because you can branch and merge easily in Git doesn't mean that you have to.

Edited to add the following:

There are some valid reasons for not using Git over SVN, but I find it pretty hard to believe that better branching/merging, offline repo access, and version numbers are among them.

Moving on from something which is already in place and taking care of existing needs, or better GUI tools (in "Corporate Americal" anyway) are certainly valid.

Re: Why Subversion Still Beats Git (via abcphp.com)

#5

Post by mattmichielsen »

mrduncan wrote: post #3

Corporate America needs a centralized version control system. Subversion still offers this: Subversion centralizes the repository and simply checks out a working copy (versus Git, which gives you a complete repository). Corporate America still needs to have cannonical version numbers, and the ability to see the progress of a product over time as a single line – not a bunch of branches and independent repositories. Wh…

I use Mercurial in a corporate environment and we use a central repository to pull from and push to. It's really beneficial to get people actually used to committing by feature or bug fix rather than just in huge batches when they feel like merging.

Re: Why Subversion Still Beats Git (via abcphp.com)

#6

Post by DannoHung »

These are not compelling arguments. In fact, these are terrible arguments, though I can see a kernel of truth, I think.

    Corporate America needs a centralized version control system.
This is either a statement of fact or a thesis. If it's a fact, then the argument is circular.

    Subversion still offers this: Subversion centralizes the repository and simply checks out a working copy (versus Git, which gives you a complete repository).
This is not an argument at all, but a description of how Subversion works versus Git.

    Corporate America still needs to have cannonical version numbers
The version numbers in Git are fundamentally canonical. There is a possibility of hash collision, of course, but that's not a real concern of anyone. If the Kernel can work with hash numbers and not have collision issues, then a large corporate product can too. If the argument were that the version numbers must be incremental, I might accept that, but I would like an explanation as to why.

    ability to see the progress of a product over time as a single line - not a bunch of branches and independent repositories
This is a workflow issue, not a problem with git.

Fundamentally, I see corporate objections to git entirely as a lack of established workflows and repo server management tools. Gitosis is nice, but I don't believe it allows for the central control that IT managers want. Also, people have not written O'Reilley books about how to manage a git server in a corporate, centrally controlled environment.

Re: Why Subversion Still Beats Git (via abcphp.com)

#7

Post by superjared »

mrduncan wrote: post #3

Corporate America needs a centralized version control system. Subversion still offers this: Subversion centralizes the repository and simply checks out a working copy (versus Git, which gives you a complete repository). Corporate America still needs to have cannonical version numbers, and the ability to see the progress of a product over time as a single line – not a bunch of branches and independent repositories. Wh…

I think the author fails to notice that with Git you can have your cake and eat it too. We use a centralized canonical repo for each of our projects as well as origin (developer) repos. With branches we can more easily add larger features without polluting the main trunk. With svn, as we all know, branching is a bitch.

Re: Why Subversion Still Beats Git (via abcphp.com)

#9

Post by angelbob »

jmount wrote: post #2

If you really need strong central control (the point of the article) then you should also consider Perforce. Non-Disclaimer: I have no association with Perforce and I don't use it unless a client has it as I prefer de-centralized source control.

The strongest arguments I know for Perforce are scaling and performance. Perforce has simply been used for larger projects, on larger servers, by larger companies than just about anything else in existence.

It's also presumably good for companies that, like subversion, it's centralized. But it doesn't have any terribly significant feature improvements over svn, otherwise. The interface is slightly slicker, and the merge works marginally better.

Post reply on HN