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/

我喜欢Git，因为它实际上有助于在中大型团队中开发人员之间的沟通。作为一个分布式版本控制系统，通过它的推送/拉系统，它帮助开发人员创建一个源代码生态系统，这有助于管理在单个项目上工作的大量开发人员。

例如，假设你信任5个开发人员，并且只从他们的存储库中提取代码。每个开发人员都有自己的信任网络，从那里提取代码。因此，开发是基于开发人员之间的信任结构，其中代码责任由开发社区共享。

当然，在这里的其他答案中也提到了其他好处。

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.

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

这里所有的答案都是意料之中的，以程序员为中心，但是如果你的公司在源代码之外使用修订控制会发生什么呢?有很多文档不是源代码，它们受益于版本控制，应该与代码接近，而不是在另一个CMS中。大多数程序员都不是孤立地工作——我们作为团队的一部分为公司工作。

考虑到这一点，比较Subversion和git在客户端工具和培训方面的易用性。我看不出有哪一种分布式修订控制系统会更容易使用或向非程序员解释。我很乐意被证明是错误的，因为这样我就可以评估git，并希望它能够被那些需要版本控制的人(而不是程序员)接受。

即便如此，如果管理层问我为什么我们应该从集中式版本控制系统转向分布式版本控制系统，我也很难给出一个诚实的答案，因为我们不需要它。

Disclaimer: I became interested in Subversion early on (around v0.29) so obviously I'm biased, but the companies I've worked for since that time are benefiting from my enthusiasm because I've encouraged and supported its use. I suspect this is how it happens with most software companies. With so many programmers jumping on the git bandwagon, I wonder how many companies are going to miss out on the benefits of using version control outside of source code? Even if you have separate systems for different teams, you're missing out on some of the benefits, such as (unified) issue tracking integration, whilst increasing maintenance, hardware and training requirements.

David Richards关于Subversion / GIT的WANdisco博客

The emergence of GIT has brought with it a breed of DVCS fundamentalists – the ‘Gitterons’ – that think anything other than GIT is crap. The Gitterons seem to think software engineering happens on their own island and often forget that most organizations don’t employ senior software engineers exclusively. That’s ok but it’s not how the rest of the market thinks, and I am happy to prove it: GIT, at the last look had less than three per cent of the market while Subversion has in the region of five million users and about half of the overall market. The problem we saw was that the Gitterons were firing (cheap) shots at Subversion. Tweets like “Subversion is so [slow/crappy/restrictive/doesn't smell good/looks at me in a funny way] and now I have GIT and [everything works in my life/my wife got pregnant/I got a girlfriend after 30 years of trying/I won six times running on the blackjack table]. You get the picture.