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

11–16 of 16 posts

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

#11

Post by gte910h »

No sense at all in this article. Git can be used functionally identically as svn is and STILL be better than svn (externals, speed, better rename support).

Git is not a source control system. Git is a tool that allows a company to define near ANY source control system. It corporate america's dream tool once they figure out they can have anything with git.

This just sounds like a guy who can't handle branches and uses arguments about a system which requires them instead of learning how to do branches.

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

#13

Post by gte910h »

DannoHung wrote: post #6

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 complet…

>Fundamentally, I see corporate objections to git entirely as a lack of established workflows and repo server management tools

I don't even understand that argument. To me, git feels EXTREMELY enterprisey. You can't USE the tool without defining a workflow, even on a simple project. That to me screams "bureaucratic control wet dream".

Git lacks in the tools department on windows, and in the ability to make "workflow specific gui's" to operate on it. Fix that, and Git wins for 90% of cases vs SVN.

Git is scary at first, but after you use it in the correct configuration for your task, you're like "oh, another tool, one that works pretty well" and you move on. I still feel dude hasn't seen the correct configuration for his task and want to point him at the configuration design bubbles in progit.

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

#15

Post by pvg »

Git might not be suitable for environments that require, say, robust GUI tools on multiple OSes but that has nothing to with it being distributed. Git didn't invent DVCS after all and its (indirect) ancestry traces right back to 'Corporate America' - BitKeeper is a commercial product used exclusively in corporate settings as was the system that inspired it - SPARCWorks/TeamWare.

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

#16

Post by fragmede » 

  Corporate America still needs to [...] see the progress of a product over time as a single line – not a bunch of branches...
"Corporate America", insofar as it is a singular monolithic entity with no cultural difference, should realize that their product IS the result of "a bunch of branches", and that git, over subversion, is a tool to help people work more efficiently because it realizes this, and helps you manage them. It changes version control from an annoying thing that you have to deal with, to a tool that helps me not worry about various details of version control, but instead deal with the problem at hand - the product. The sheer existence of git-stash sold me, and while I'm handy enough to use "svn diff > changes.patch" with "patch The biggest benefit of git, over svn, I'd argue is actually branch merging and merge conflict-resolution capabilities. Subversion 1.6, however, is supposed to take leaps and bounds to catching up to git (vs. the 1.4 server install I currently work with). The version numbers in git are less intuitive than svn, but I feel thats okay, because tagging is useful in git. The real win for git, is that git works with you and your workflow, and doesn't impose as much workflow as subversion does.

( git-svn absolutely your friend. )

Post reply on HN