我喜欢DVCS的主要原因是:

You can commit broken things. It doesn't matter because other peoples won't see them until you publish. Publish time is different of commit time. Because of this you can commit more often. You can merge complete functionnality. This functionnality will have its own branch. All commits of this branch will be related to this functionnality. You can do it with a CVCS however with DVCS its the default. You can search your history (find when a function changed ) You can undo a pull if someone screw up the main repository, you don't need to fix the errors. Just clear the merge. When you need a source control in any directory do : git init . and you can commit, undoing changes, etc... It's fast (even on Windows )

一个相对较大的项目的主要原因是由点3创建的改进的交流。其他的则是不错的奖金。

David Richards关于Subversion / GIT的WANdisco博客

The emergence of GIT has brought with it a breed of DVCS fundamentalists – the ‘Gitterons’ – that think anything other than GIT is crap. The Gitterons seem to think software engineering happens on their own island and often forget that most organizations don’t employ senior software engineers exclusively. That’s ok but it’s not how the rest of the market thinks, and I am happy to prove it: GIT, at the last look had less than three per cent of the market while Subversion has in the region of five million users and about half of the overall market. The problem we saw was that the Gitterons were firing (cheap) shots at Subversion. Tweets like “Subversion is so [slow/crappy/restrictive/doesn't smell good/looks at me in a funny way] and now I have GIT and [everything works in my life/my wife got pregnant/I got a girlfriend after 30 years of trying/I won six times running on the blackjack table]. You get the picture.

This is the wrong question to be asking. It's all too easy to focus on git's warts and formulate an argument about why subversion is ostensibly better, at least for some use cases. The fact that git was originally designed as a low-level version control construction set and has a baroque linux-developer-oriented interface makes it easier for the holy wars to gain traction and perceived legitimacy. Git proponents bang the drum with millions of workflow advantages, which svn guys proclaim unnecessary. Pretty soon the whole debate is framed as centralized vs distributed, which serves the interests of the enterprise svn tool community. These companies, which typically put out the most convincing articles about subversion's superiority in the enterprise, are dependent on the perceived insecurity of git and the enterprise-readiness of svn for the long-term success of their products.

但问题是:Subversion是架构的死胡同。

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.

现在，对于那些仍然相信Subversion在可预见的未来足够优秀的人，我有一个发自内心的不可知论的建议:

Subversion永远不会赶上从RCS和CVS的错误中吸取教训的新型vcs;这在技术上是不可能的，除非他们从头开始重新配置存储库模型，但这样就不是真正的SVN了，不是吗?不管你认为自己有多不具备现代VCS的能力，你的无知也无法保护你远离Subversion的陷阱，其中许多情况在其他系统中是不可能或很容易解决的。

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.

Windows中的Git现在得到了很好的支持。

查看GitExtensions = http://code.google.com/p/gitextensions/

以及更好的Windows Git体验的手册。

Git还使分支和合并变得非常容易。Subversion 1.5刚刚添加了合并跟踪，但是Git仍然更好。使用Git进行分支是非常快速和廉价的。它使得为每个新特性创建分支更加可行。哦，与Subversion相比，Git存储库的存储空间非常有效。

http://subversion.wandisco.com/component/content/article/1/40.html

我认为可以很有把握地说，在开发人员中，SVN和Git的争论已经激烈了一段时间，每个人都有自己的观点，哪个更好。这甚至在我们2010年及以后关于颠覆的网络研讨会的问题中被提出。

我们的开源和Subversion公司总统总监Hyrum Wright谈到了Subversion和Git之间的区别，以及其他分布式版本控制系统(DVCS)。

他还谈到了Subversion中即将发生的变化，比如下一代工作拷贝(WC-NG)，他认为这会导致许多Git用户转换回Subversion。

请观看他的视频，并通过在这个博客上评论或在我们的论坛上发帖来告诉我们你的想法。注册很简单，只需要一点时间!