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。

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.

有趣的是: 我在Subversion Repos中托管项目，但是通过Git Clone命令访问它们。

请阅读在谷歌代码项目中使用Git进行开发

虽然谷歌代码原生说话 Subversion，可以轻松使用Git 在开发过程中。搜索“git” Svn建议这种做法是正确的 广泛传播，我们也鼓励你 用它来做实验。

在Svn存储库上使用Git给我带来了好处:

我可以分配到几个 机器，承诺和从 对他们来说 我有一个中央备份/公共svn存储库供其他人检查 他们可以自由地使用Git

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。

为什么我认为Subversion比Git好(至少对于我所从事的项目来说)，主要是因为它的可用性和更简单的工作流程:

http://www.databasesandlife.com/why-subversion-is-better-than-git/

我认为Subversion很好。直到你开始合并…或者做任何复杂的事情。或者做任何Subversion认为复杂的事情(比如查询哪些分支弄乱了特定的文件，更改实际上来自哪里，检测复制和粘贴，等等)…

我不同意获胜的答案，我认为GIT的主要好处是离线工作——它当然有用，但它更像是我的用例的额外功能。SVK也可以离线工作，对我来说，把我的学习时间投入到哪一个是没有问题的)。

只是它非常强大、快速，而且——在习惯了这些概念之后——非常有用(是的，在这个意义上:用户友好)。

有关合并故事的更多细节，请参见: 使用git-svn(或类似)*只是*帮助svn合并?