我已经使用Subversion很多年了,在使用SourceSafe之后,我爱上了Subversion。结合TortoiseSVN,我真的无法想象它还能有什么更好的。
然而,越来越多的开发人员声称Subversion存在问题,我们应该转向新的分布式版本控制系统,比如Git。
Git如何改进Subversion?
我已经使用Subversion很多年了,在使用SourceSafe之后,我爱上了Subversion。结合TortoiseSVN,我真的无法想象它还能有什么更好的。
然而,越来越多的开发人员声称Subversion存在问题,我们应该转向新的分布式版本控制系统,比如Git。
Git如何改进Subversion?
当前回答
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。)
其他回答
我最近一直住在Git的土地上,我喜欢用它来做个人项目,但是我还不能把工作项目从Subversion转换到Git上,因为它改变了工作人员的想法,而且没有紧迫的好处。此外,我们内部运行的最大项目非常依赖于svn:externals,从我目前所看到的来看,它在Git中并不能很好地无缝工作。
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!
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)
“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。
首先,并发版本控制似乎是一个很容易解决的问题。一点也不。无论如何……
SVN非常不直观。Git更糟糕。这可能是因为开发人员喜欢并发版本控制这样的难题,他们对制作一个好的UI没有多大兴趣。[/ sarcastic-speculation]
SVN supporters think they don't need a distributed version-control system. I thought that too. But now that we use Git exclusively, I'm a believer. Now version control works for me AND the team/project instead of just working for the project. When I need a branch, I branch. Sometimes it's a branch that has a corresponding branch on the server, and sometimes it does not. Not to mention all the other advantages that I'll have to go study up on (thanks in part to the arcane and absurd lack of UI that is a modern version control system).