Difference between revisions of "Category:SVN"

From Noah.org
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[[Category:Engineering]]
 
[[Category:Engineering]]
Lately I have been switching to using [http://git.or.cz/ git]. I have always been disappointed by the poor merge tracking support in Subversion. Even the 1.5x series has uninspiring merge tracking support. Also my new employer uses both git and Subversion, so this gives me a good incentive and opportunity to finally learn git.
 
  
Subversion has flaws and limitations, but it's a lot better than CVS and it's cheap. The low price doesn't reflect low quality or lack of support. Subversion does not do distributed version control very well and merging is frustrating; although, a few simple third-party tools make it tolerable. It is also difficult to automatically generate reports that graph changes. The problem is that all the commercial offerings are very expensive. ClearCase is expensive to buy and very difficult to maintain. It is complex. Perforce is probably better, but it is also expensive. It's hard to beat free! I have also been tempted by Git, which I suspect is better than Subversion, but I have more time and experience invested in Subversion.
+
I use Subversion a lot because a lot of employers use it and I had a lot of experience with it in the past. It fixes many of the glaring flaws in CVS. Linus Torvalds joked that there is no way to do CVS right and now I agree. You can make Subversion work and it is not the worst thing in the world (CSV), but it is fundamentally and conceptually broken. It's easy to use git in a similar workflow as Subversion (centralized repository) and even handicapped like that it outperforms Subversion and is just as easy to use (even easier and better when you consider merging). '''So... I am a convert to [http://git.or.cz/ git].'''
 +
 
 +
Subversion has flaws and limitations, but it's better than CVS and it's cheap. The low price doesn't reflect low quality or lack of support. Subversion does not do distributed version control and merging is bad; although, a third-party tool makes merging a bit more tolerable. It is also difficult to automatically generate reports that graph changes. The problem is that all the commercial offerings are very expensive. ClearCase is expensive to buy and very difficult to maintain. It is complex. Perforce is probably better, but it is also expensive. It's hard to beat free!

Revision as of 23:38, 4 December 2008


I use Subversion a lot because a lot of employers use it and I had a lot of experience with it in the past. It fixes many of the glaring flaws in CVS. Linus Torvalds joked that there is no way to do CVS right and now I agree. You can make Subversion work and it is not the worst thing in the world (CSV), but it is fundamentally and conceptually broken. It's easy to use git in a similar workflow as Subversion (centralized repository) and even handicapped like that it outperforms Subversion and is just as easy to use (even easier and better when you consider merging). So... I am a convert to git.

Subversion has flaws and limitations, but it's better than CVS and it's cheap. The low price doesn't reflect low quality or lack of support. Subversion does not do distributed version control and merging is bad; although, a third-party tool makes merging a bit more tolerable. It is also difficult to automatically generate reports that graph changes. The problem is that all the commercial offerings are very expensive. ClearCase is expensive to buy and very difficult to maintain. It is complex. Perforce is probably better, but it is also expensive. It's hard to beat free!

Pages in category "SVN"

The following 7 pages are in this category, out of 7 total.