Git vs. Subversion. Which one?
rc040203 at freenet.de
Tue Sep 30 09:32:33 UTC 2008
On Tue, 2008-09-30 at 04:32 -0400, Thomas Thurman wrote:
> 2008/9/30 Nifty Fedora Mitch <niftyfedora at niftyegg.com>:
> > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 09:30:39PM -0300, Armin Moradi wrote:
> >> So I wanted to know about the public opinions on which one is better,
> > Read about Mecurial and RCS.
> > This is a BIG topic.... and you need to disclose the size of the
> > team and their preferences.
> > If it is just you.... use RCS.
> Out of interest, why do you recommend RCS over, say, svn or git or bzr
> for a personal project?
I for one am still favoring CVS for several reasons:
* I am used to using it for a very long time and am familiar with it.
* CVS (and RCS) archives can be converted/exported to almost all other
VCS if required.
* CVS (and RCS) have proven their longevity. Their bugs and deficiencies
are widely know and understood. This does not necessarily apply to most
* I don't need a distributed VCS.
* CVS clients are widely available, many (most) users are least to some
extend familiar with it.
If I was new to VCS's, I'd set up a local testbed of typical use cases
and evaluate the candidates. My personal candidates would be CVS, SVN,
git and mercurial.
All have pros and cons. None of them meets everybody's preferences and
> I've been using bzr for a while for one-off
> projects (which never need pushing to other machines than the one I'm
> working on) and it works fine without ever using the distributed-ness.
The point which has never let appear bzr attractive to me is it being an
exotic niche => Likely fine for local use, but I would not consider it
as basis for a larger project.
More information about the users