

Why Subversion is better than Git - jameseh
http://subversion.wandisco.com/component/content/article/1/40.html

======
mru
He seems to be saying that svn is better than git because _some_ git users
have a central repository they work against, and because they are planning on
adding some features that might to some extent allow them to mimic a few
things git already can do. That's just about the weakest argument for svn over
git I've ever heard.

Then the went on to use the word "enterprise" about 10 times in 30 seconds.
Not convincing.

~~~
cdavid
The whole centralized vs distributed debate does not make much sense anyway,
the choice of words is very poor. You almost always want to work on a common
repository when working with other people - but the whole point of DVCS is
that this common repository can be different for different usages (release vs
development vs documentation vs testing ...). Something like subversion makes
it very difficult to have several full fledge, synchronized repositories. Once
you have a way to easily replicate live repo on the fly, you have already
almost everything needed for a DVCS.

Also, something which is often overlooked: subversion was very poor even
before DVCS came to light. It was only good at making sure everybody could
work on the same snapshot. Branch management was inexistent not so long ago,
no usable merge capabilities, awful interface to compare branches, etc... Just
using git as a client to svn repository through git-svn already brings many
advantages. Git-svn has saved me countless hours already compared to straight
svn when working on public projects, especially for release management. svn
log, blame, diff are slow to the point of being useless once you need to
compare past revisions.

------
sunchild
Subversion is better than Git because many people use Git in a centralized
manner? Wouldn't that make Git better, since it offers more options?

------
DannoHung
They've ignored Git's superior branching scheme though. Once you use Git for a
while and get a hang of branches, you won't want to go back to the Subversion
way of doing it.

~~~
axod
FWIW, I'm of the school of thought that branching is bad, causes mess, and
should be hard.

Having said that, branching seems pretty simple in svn if you really like
having them.

~~~
jedbrown
The problem is that svn makes branching easy, but merging very hard. This
provides an incentive to postpone merges which of course makes them even
harder once the excuses run out and they have to be done. Distributed SCMs
recognize that branching is necessary, but actually provide the tools to make
merging easy. Once merging is easy, branching doesn't look bad any more.

~~~
axod
It still looks bad to me. I want 1 codebase, developed linearly.

Definitely I can see the appeal of branches for software you ship, where you
need to bug fix an old version and release a patched ver etc, but I can't
really see the need for web based software, which I think is pretty usually
developed linearly without much mess.

I much prefer doing branches in the source code (If that makes sense).

For example say you have a widget and you want to try a different strategy,
create a newWidget in the source, make it so you can swap it in and out of the
runtime maybe for testing. Keep developing it, until you're sure it's cool.
When cool, replace widget with newWidget. If it doesn't work out, just delete
it.

~~~
jerf
"I want 1 codebase, developed linearly."

Then, when you want to commit your branch, rebase the branch from your master
before merging. Then, when you merge, the patches will show up all in a row at
the point you commit, as if they were all done in a row. Essentially, this is
exactly what happens when you are working with subversion for a couple of days
and then do several commits at the end.

Except you can trivially have multiple of these things going at a time.

I'm going to ask you a question: Have you actually tried git or anything for a
significant period of time, like, at least a couple weeks? (Not just "yeah, 5
minutes.") If not, I'd point out that you're speculating about how git _might_
affect workflow to people who actually _know_ how git affects workflow, since
they are living it. (And if so, you're not doing a great job of showing that
you tried it.)

~~~
axod
Yes I tried it for a day (Not long I agree). It looked like a reasonably copy
of svn, but it didn't offer me anything.

Let me restate: I do not like branches and use them _very_ rarely.

So, to the guy who hates branches, what does git offer me over svn (Which does
all I need at the moment)?

~~~
plinkplonk
"So, to the guy who hates branches, what does git offer me over svn (Which
does all I need at the moment)?"

The ability to version control your project (even without branching you can
checkin) when disconnected (from your network).

~~~
axod
Yes, I do this with svn easily enough (Local install of svn). Simple enough...

Maybe that's a good selling point for people who aren't connected to the net
much though,

~~~
plinkplonk
"Yes, I do this with svn easily enough (Local install of svn). Simple
enough..."

Yeah Right :-P Obviously I meant if you were working on a project with its
repository on a remote server. Assuming you want local version control (as you
seemt o do, since you are locally installing svn) you'd maintain a separate
local repository, maintain the same project under both, and synch them both
when you get back online?

And if you had two laptops say (apart from the remote server) , you'd maintain
3 repositories?

~~~
axod
It's not really a use case I have. If I'm working, I have internet
connectivity :/

------
acg
Came across as excuses as why the subversion design was so inflexible and how
it's going to change.

Painting a picture that distributed version control systems learnt from
subversion is rubbish. These technologies were developed over the same period:
bitkeeper's development started some time in 1997.

------
kennu
Somehow I get the feeling that he's getting bored with Subversion even himself
and ready to move on to Git ;-)

------
rnicholson
_He also talks about the upcoming changes in Subversion, such as Working Copy
Next Generation (WC-NG), which he believes will cause a number of Git users to
convert back to Subversion._

If I've already left for git (or other dvcs) why would I come back just for
"working copy"? I moved on from Subversion for much more than that...

------
bozmac
I always hated the way svn left its .svn cruft all over the place. Glad to see
they're trying to get away from it with version 1.7 but it's the same kind of
glad as seeing someone try to make an iPod killer.

------
j_baker
I'll give them this: they certainly have their work cut out for them. If they
can make me want to go back to SVN, they'll have performed a miracle.

------
unwind
"Most people were using CVS or other proprietary version control systems"?

~~~
timthorn
Perhaps that should read, "Most people were using CVS or other, proprietary,
version control systems"?

------
nickyp
Wow, that's 4 minutes of my life I won't get back, and I'm a subversion (and
git) user ;-(

------
machrider
I literally thought this video was a joke for the first couple minutes. But
then it wasn't very funny, and I realized "holy crap, this guy is serious." I
don't know what else to say.

------
drtse4
Improving subversion borrowing some "distributed feature" from git&co? I'm not
sure of how many would care... The thing that make svn a "toy" scm is the
branching model/facilities(e.g. merge) and this is the area that seriously
needs to be improved. Do you want to bring svn "to the enterprise"? Start
offering what other enterprise scms offer, take clearcase for example, it has
its issues but the branch/merge facilities are great.

------
mseebach
Not for nothing, but Wandisco sells $1000/seat software that makes Subversion
distributed (i.e. more like Git).

I checked it out about three years ago (before Git was on my radar) when the
company I worked for brought on some offshore developers, and they were on a
slow and unstable internet connection.

------
philjackson
Is there a transcript of this anywhere?

------
vgurgov
Haha this dude is so awesome :)

We are better cause... we are just better! Everybody knows that! And we gonna
have these useless features from git soon too!

------
cmallen
This is marketing trash. Life is too short, don't watch.

------
oomkiller
I don't think there is anything they can do to get me to switch back. Out of
every VCS I've tried, Git seems to be the most flexible and advanced.

