This question is for those who care about revision control...
Is SVN better or GIT better in the point of view of usability practicality and being "free" in rivision control?
the winner decided by this thread will be used as the rivision control mech. in my new site...
-- Shashi http://groups.google.com/group/uncorkers
Shashi connect2shashi@gmail.com wrote:
This question is for those who care about revision control...
Is SVN better or GIT better in the point of view of usability practicality and being "free" in rivision control?
the winner decided by this thread will be used as the rivision control mech. in my new site...
I like git better -- super easy repository creation and offline commits and easy branching and git stash (and probably a lot of other things) and excellent Emacs integration (this is true about most VCS, but check out magit also) FTW. I use git-svn with subversion repositories and love the convenience so far.
What's better for you is up to you.
Shashi wrote:
This question is for those who care about revision control...
Is SVN better or GIT better in the point of view of usability practicality and being "free" in rivision control?
the winner decided by this thread will be used as the rivision control mech. in my new site...
Well this is like asking whether set dosa or uthappam. Both has his own pros and cons, and a project should decide upon it's basic nature of contribution. GIT is developed to cater to the needs to Linux Kernel development, where the contributors are both huge in numbers and distributed around the globe. Although what goes in and our of the main code base is decided by a minority of the contributors, what GIT supports is the ability of a wannabe contributor to get a local copy of the entire code base, start hacking around without affecting the main trunk. The local copy is very individual and has very minimal relation to the main code base. Secondly, when you know another one who has some cool hacks in his local copy he can push his changes into your code and you can push yours to him, and all this without affecting anyone else or especially the main code base.
On the other hand, Subversion is as good but for projects who wants to maintain everything on a central repository. Though people can indeed checkout a local copy, when somebody wants to work on a fork or a parallel method for existing code base without affecting the main trunk, they need some level of privileges to create branches. Also, one needs commit access to push his/her code into the code base (even to the branch). The advantages are a centrally managed code base, where even branches are managed. Additionally, having a commit access to a FOSS project is considered good enough to have been certified and recognized as a contributer and even hacker. It's a privilege to get a commit access to a repository. It's well suited for less scoped projects where the contributors are limited in numbers and not as widely distributed as that of Linux Kernel.
Well, it's your call to decide which suits your needs. I have been using and working with subversion repositories for 3 years now and I haven't yet had a time when I felt something missing, I can vouch for an svn repository for source code management for any decent sized project.