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。

Git并不比Subversion好。但也不是更糟。这是不一样的。

关键的区别在于它是去中心化的。想象一下你是一个在路上的开发人员，你在你的笔记本电脑上开发，你想要有源代码控制，这样你就可以回到3小时前。

使用Subversion时，您会遇到一个问题:SVN存储库可能位于您无法到达的位置(在您的公司中，并且您目前没有互联网)，您无法提交。如果你想复制你的代码，你必须复制/粘贴它。

使用Git，您就不会遇到这个问题。您的本地副本是一个存储库，您可以提交它并获得源代码控制的所有好处。当您重新获得到主存储库的连接时，您可以针对它提交。

一开始看起来不错，但是要记住这种方法增加了复杂性。

Git似乎是“新的、闪亮的、酷的”东西。它绝对不坏(毕竟Linus为Linux内核开发写了它是有原因的)，但是我觉得很多人只是因为它是新的并且是由Linus Torvalds写的，就跳上了“分布式源代码控制”这列火车，而不知道为什么/它是否更好。

Subversion有问题，但是Git、Mercurial、CVS、TFS等等也有问题。

编辑:所以这个答案现在已经有一年了，仍然获得了很多赞，所以我想我会添加更多的解释。在写这篇文章后的去年，Git获得了很多动力和支持，特别是在像GitHub这样的网站真正起飞之后。我现在同时使用Git和Subversion，我想分享一些个人见解。

First of all, Git can be really confusing at first when working decentralized. What is a remote? and How to properly set up the initial repository? are two questions that come up at the beginning, especially compared to SVN's simple "svnadmin create", Git's "git init" can take the parameters --bare and --shared which seems to be the "proper" way to set up a centralized repository. There are reasons for this, but it adds complexity. The documentation of the "checkout" command is very confusing to people changing over - the "proper" way seems to be "git clone", while "git checkout" seems to switch branches.

当你去中心化的时候，Git真的会发光。我家里有一台服务器，路上有一台笔记本电脑，SVN在这里根本不能很好地工作。使用SVN，如果我没有连接到存储库，我就不能进行本地源代码控制(是的，我知道SVK或复制回购的方法)。对于Git，这是默认模式。这是一个额外的命令(git commit在本地提交，而git push origin master将主分支推到名为“origin”的远程)。

如上所述:Git增加了复杂性。创建存储库的两种模式，签出vs克隆，提交vs推…您必须知道哪些命令在本地工作，哪些命令在“服务器”上工作(我假设大多数人仍然喜欢中央的“主存储库”)。

而且，工具仍然不够，至少在Windows上是这样。是的，有一个Visual Studio插件，但我仍然使用git bash和msysgit。

SVN的优点是学习起来简单得多:有您的存储库，所有针对它的更改，如果您知道如何创建、提交和签出，您就可以准备好，并可以在以后提取分支、更新等内容。

Git的优势在于，如果一些开发人员不总是连接到主存储库，它会更适合。而且，它比SVN快得多。据我所知，分支和合并支持要好得多(这是意料之中的，因为这是编写它的核心原因)。

这也解释了为什么它在互联网上获得了如此多的关注，因为Git非常适合开源项目:只需Fork它，将您的更改提交到您自己的Fork，然后让原始项目维护者提取您的更改。使用Git，这就可以了。真的，在Github上试试吧，太神奇了。

我还看到了Git-SVN网桥:中央存储库是一个Subversion repo，但开发人员在本地使用Git，网桥将他们的更改推到SVN。

但是即使有了这么长的补充，我仍然坚持我的核心信息:Git并没有更好或更差，它只是不同而已。如果你需要“离线源代码控制”，并愿意花一些额外的时间学习它，那就太棒了。但是如果您有一个严格集中的源代码控制，并且/或者因为您的同事不感兴趣而在第一时间努力引入源代码控制，那么SVN的简单性和出色的工具(至少在Windows上)就会脱颖而出。

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.

“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。

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

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。