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
我非常喜欢能够在Git中管理源代码的本地分支,而不会混淆中央存储库的水。在许多情况下,我将从Subversion服务器签出代码并运行本地Git存储库,只是为了能够做到这一点。初始化Git存储库不会因为到处都是烦人的.svn文件夹而污染文件系统,这一点也很棒。
至于Windows工具的支持,TortoiseGit处理基本的很好,但我仍然喜欢命令行,除非我想查看日志。我真的很喜欢Tortoise{Git|SVN}在读取提交日志时的帮助方式。
其他回答
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
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!
来自SourceGear的Eric Sink写了一系列关于分布式和非分布式版本控制系统之间区别的文章。他比较了最流行的版本控制系统的优缺点。非常有趣的读物。 文章可以在他的博客www.ericsink.com上找到:
阅读差异 Git是版本控制工具中的C Git缺乏对不变性和DVCS最佳实践的尊重 DVCS和dag,第1部分 DVCS和dag,第2部分 DVCS和Bug跟踪 合并历史,dag和Darcs Git为什么这么快? Mercurial, Subversion和Wesley Snipes
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
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.