我并没有真正回答你的问题，但如果你想要分布式版本控制的好处——听起来是这样的——并且你正在使用Windows，我认为你最好使用Mercurial而不是Git，因为Mercurial对Windows的支持要好得多。Mercurial也有Mac移植版本。

我会选择SVN，因为它传播更广泛，知名度更高。

我想Git更适合Linux用户。

Git在Windows下还不受本地支持。它针对Posix系统进行了优化。然而，运行Cygwin或MinGW可以让你成功运行Git。

现在我更喜欢Git而不是SVN，但是如果你来自CVS, SVN的土地，它需要一段时间才能超过阈值。

你必须使用DVCS，它就像源代码管理的一个量子飞跃。就我个人而言，我使用Monotone和它加速的开发时间没有结束。我们在Windows、Linux和Mac上使用它，它非常稳定。我甚至让buildbot在每个平台上进行每晚的项目构建。

分布式DVCS通常意味着您将创建一个中央服务器，仅供人们推送更改。

有人指出，在Windows下，SVN似乎是一个不错的选择。

如果您的一些开发人员想要尝试GIT，他们可能总是使用GIT-SVN，其中SVN存储库是在GIT存储库中重新创建的。然后，他应该能够在本地使用GIT，然后使用SVN将其更改发布到主存储库。

在做了更多的研究，并查看了这个链接:https://git.wiki.kernel.org/articles/g/i/t/GitSvnComparison_cb82.html

(摘录如下):

It's incredibly fast. No other SCM that I have used has been able to keep up with it, and I've used a lot, including Subversion, Perforce, darcs, BitKeeper, ClearCase and CVS. It's fully distributed. The repository owner can't dictate how I work. I can create branches and commit changes while disconnected on my laptop, then later synchronize that with any number of other repositories. Synchronization can occur over many media. An SSH channel, over HTTP via WebDAV, by FTP, or by sending emails holding patches to be applied by the recipient of the message. A central repository isn't necessary, but can be used. Branches are even cheaper than they are in Subversion. Creating a branch is as simple as writing a 41 byte file to disk. Deleting a branch is as simple as deleting that file. Unlike Subversion branches carry along their complete history. without having to perform a strange copy and walk through the copy. When using Subversion I always found it awkward to look at the history of a file on branch that occurred before the branch was created. from #git: spearce: I don't understand one thing about SVN in the page. I made a branch i SVN and browsing the history showed the whole history a file in the branch Branch merging is simpler and more automatic in Git. In Subversion you need to remember what was the last revision you merged from so you can generate the correct merge command. Git does this automatically, and always does it right. Which means there's less chance of making a mistake when merging two branches together. Branch merges are recorded as part of the proper history of the repository. If I merge two branches together, or if I merge a branch back into the trunk it came from, that merge operation is recorded as part of the repostory history as having been performed by me, and when. It's hard to dispute who performed the merge when it's right there in the log. Creating a repository is a trivial operation: mkdir foo; cd foo; git init That's it. Which means I create a Git repository for everything these days. I tend to use one repository per class. Most of those repositories are under 1 MB in disk as they only store lecture notes, homework assignments, and my LaTeX answers. The repository's internal file formats are incredible simple. This means repair is very easy to do, but even better because it's so simple its very hard to get corrupted. I don't think anyone has ever had a Git repository get corrupted. I've seen Subversion with fsfs corrupt itself. And I've seen Berkley DB corrupt itself too many times to trust my code to the bdb backend of Subversion. Git's file format is very good at compressing data, despite it's a very simple format. The Mozilla project's CVS repository is about 3 GB; it's about 12 GB in Subversion's fsfs format. In Git it's around 300 MB.

在阅读了所有这些之后，我确信Git是可行的方法(尽管存在一点学习曲线)。我也在Windows平台上使用过Git和SVN。

我很想听听其他人在读完上面的文章后会怎么说?