Despite all the more interesting links in my last post, my use of
Subversion was the only one that sparked any interest, so I thought I'd explore my reasons for sticking with Subversion, despite the current
Git frenzy:
- My subversion repo is on another server so when I commit, I'm also backing up. Git does commits really fast, but only because everything is happening locally until you push (I think). I'd end up committing, then pushing every time to maintain my 'backup', so I presume the Git speed advantage would be lost...?
- Subversion was designed to be a better CVS, and I already knew how to use that, so switching to Subversion was easy for me. I believe Git has a bit of a learning curve?
- I'm not working in a huge distributed team so wouldn't benefit from Git's more sophisticated branching/merging/rebasing (whatever that is).
- Subversion has better clients: e.g. how sexy is Versions? It's also integrated into Coda. Git support/integration is gradually appearing, but it's not widespread yet.
- My Brightbox VPS came reconfigured with Subversion support. To use Git, I believe I'd have to install something like Gitosis...?
- Git is difficult on Windows (or was). Wait a minute, that's a plus point for Git!
Don't get me wrong, part of me wants to switch to Git, perhaps just because it's the latest greatest thing. On the other hand, I can't really see how it improves things for me. Feel free to convince me to switch to Git, or defend Subversion, or recommend something else (
Bazaar,
Mercurial?).