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

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).

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。

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.

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。

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

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/