“为什么Git比X好”概述了Git相对于其他scm的各种优缺点。

简要:

Git tracks content rather than files Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy. It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked. Git repositories are much smaller in file size than Subversion repositories. There's only one ".git" directory, as opposed to dozens of ".svn" repositories (note Subversion 1.7 and higher now uses a single directory like Git.) The staging area is awesome, it allows you to see the changes you will commit, commit partial changes and do various other stuff. Stashing is invaluable when you do "chaotic" development, or simply want to fix a bug while you're still working on something else (on a different branch). You can rewrite history, which is great for preparing patch sets and fixing your mistakes (before you publish the commits) … and a lot more.

有一些缺点:

There aren't many good GUIs for it yet. It's new and Subversion has been around for a lot longer, so this is natural as there are a few interfaces in development. Some good ones include TortoiseGit and GitHub for Mac. Partial checkouts/clones of repositories are not possible at the moment (I read that it's in development). However, there is submodule support. Git 1.7+ supports sparse checkouts. It might be harder to learn, even though I did not find this to be the case (about a year ago). Git has recently improved its interface and is quite user friendly.

在最简单的用法中，Subversion和Git是差不多的。两者之间没有太大区别:

svn checkout svn://foo.com/bar bar
cd bar
# edit
svn commit -m "foo"

and

git clone git@github.com:foo/bar.git
cd bar
# edit
git commit -a -m "foo"
git push

Git真正的亮点在于分支和与其他人一起工作。

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.

Subversion仍然是一种更常用的版本控制系统，这意味着它有更好的工具支持。您会发现几乎所有IDE都有成熟的SVN插件，并且有很好的资源管理器扩展可用(如TurtoiseSVN)。除此之外，我不得不同意Michael的观点:Git并不比Subversion更好或更差，它是不同的。

Easy Git有一个很好的页面，比较了Git和SVN的实际使用情况，这将让你了解Git可以做什么(或更容易做什么)。(从技术上讲，这是基于Easy Git的，它是Git之上的轻量级包装器。)

使用Git，您几乎可以脱机做任何事情，因为每个人都有自己的存储库。

创建分支和合并分支非常简单。

即使你没有项目的提交权限，你仍然可以拥有自己的在线存储库，并发布补丁的“推送请求”。每个喜欢你的补丁的人都可以把它们拉到他们的项目中，包括官方的维护者。

分叉一个项目，修改它，并仍然从HEAD分支中合并错误修复是很简单的。

Git适用于Linux内核开发人员。这意味着它非常快(必须如此)，并且可以扩展到数千个贡献者。Git使用的空间也更少(Mozilla存储库的空间最多减少30倍)。

Git非常灵活，非常TIMTOWTDI(有不止一种方法可以做到)。你可以使用任何你想要的工作流，Git会支持它。

最后，还有GitHub，一个托管Git存储库的好网站。

Git的缺点:

它更难学，因为Git有更多的概念和命令。 修订版不像subversion那样有版本号 许多Git命令是神秘的，错误消息对用户非常不友好 它缺少一个好的GUI(比如伟大的TortoiseSVN)

谷歌技术讲座:Linus Torvalds谈git

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8

Git Wiki的比较页面

http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion