[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn vs. git

From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:59:29 +0200

Op 25 jul. 2017 9:48 a.m. schreef "Andreas Krey" <a.krey_at_gmx.de>:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2017 17:38:38 +0000, Nathan Hartman wrote:

> Subversion is a very good system. It doesn't get the credit it deserves,

Please. git managed to be faster in providing actually working
(i.e. tracked) merges than subversion, and then there was
the --reintegrate debacle that took another five years to
sort out.

Please. svn managed to be faster in providing granular access control,
sparse checkouts, handling large repositories and is *vastly* more simple
to use than git. It even has internal libraries with stable API's that
allow writing plugins and GUI's on top rather than them having to drive a
command line utility.

So ... it depends what you're after. git being faster at having tracked
merges doesn't make Subversion a bad system.

Received on 2017-07-25 13:59:35 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.