这一切都是关于做某事所需的易用性/步骤。

如果我在我的PC/笔记本电脑上开发一个项目，git会更好，因为它的设置和使用要容易得多。 合并时不需要服务器，也不需要一直输入存储库URL's in。

如果只有两个人，我会说git也更简单，因为你可以互相推拉。

一旦你超越了这一点，我就会选择颠覆，因为在这一点上你需要设置一个“专用”服务器或位置。

使用git可以像使用SVN一样做到这一点，但是git的好处被需要执行额外步骤来与中央服务器同步所抵消。在SVN中，你只需要提交。在git中，你必须先执行git commit，然后再执行git push。额外的步骤很烦人，因为你最后做了太多。

SVN也有更好的GUI工具的好处，但是git生态系统似乎正在迅速追赶，所以从长远来看我并不担心这一点。

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.

Git和DVCS通常都非常适合于独立编写大量代码的开发人员，因为每个人都有自己的分支。但是，如果您需要从其他人那里进行更改，她必须提交给她的本地回购，然后她必须将该更改集推给您，或者您必须从她那里获取更改集。

我自己的推理也让我认为，如果你做集中发布之类的事情，DVCS会让QA和发布管理变得更加困难。必须有人负责从其他人的存储库中进行推送/拉取，解决任何在最初提交时就可以解决的冲突，然后进行构建，然后让所有其他开发人员重新同步他们的回购。

当然，所有这些都可以通过人工流程来解决;DVCS只是破坏了一些由集中式版本控制修复的东西，以便提供一些新的便利。

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

对于那些正在寻找一个好的Git GUI的人来说，Syntevo SmartGit可能是一个很好的解决方案。它是私有的，但对非商业用途是免费的，可以在Windows/Mac/Linux上运行，我认为甚至可以使用某种git-svn网桥来支持SVN。

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).