Mon, 24 May 2010 17:49:22 -0400, /David Weintraub/:
> Many people think that Git MUST be better because Linus Tolvards uses
> it. But, that's mainly because of the way the Linux project operates.
>
> I've had developers tell me how much better Git is when they work with
> on their own one-man projects because Git is "distributed"...
The main points/questions raised were not about "distributed" but "It
seems that the svn commands are actually longer than git" (which is a
nobrainer in my opinion) and "Does svn offer all the capability that
gits offer in terms of branching and merging (ignoring performance
issues)?".
I personally like Mercurial best and Linus Torvalds doesn't use it, as
far as I know. :-) It handles branching and merging better than
Subversion in many cases. It is that I've used Subversion (and CVS
prior that) much longer and I still need to use Subversion most of the
time. However knowing Mercurial I've been able to keep two SVN branches
in sync - one featuring lots of moves/renames, for months before I had a
chance to reintegrate all the refactorings back to the main development
branch (using something like hybrid working copies), with little effort
while it appeared impossible using Subversion (I had been getting
hundreds of tree conflicts on every merge).
--
Stanimir
Received on 2010-05-25 00:25:32 CEST