Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
SVN's major "con" is it being comparatively generous on local
diskspace and it polluting a checked out source trees with huge
amount of VCS-metadata files (git, mercurial do so as well).

Git and mercurial both keep their files in one top-level dir, e.g.
.git or .hg. This doesn't count as "polluting the tree" in my mind.
It's certainly not as annoying as the "CVS" dirs that CVS puts all
over my tree.

Sure, the disk space is higher for a git clone than for a CVS
checkout, but with git you are getting the entire history of the
project instead of just one working copy as you do with CVS (or
Subversion) -- I consider this a free backup with each checkout. The
advantage of not having to wait for diffs and logs across a network is
well worth the disk space. And, if you're developing on a single box
holding the repository and working copy, both CVS and Subversion
generally use more disk space than git does -- with Subversion being
significantly worse than CVS in this area.

Git is also very efficient with regards to storage. I have often
found that an entire git repository is significantly smaller than a
single Subversion working copy. As another point of information,
according to http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion, "the Mozilla
project's CVS repository is about 3 GB; it's about 12 GB in
Subversion's fsfs format. In Git it's around 300 MB."

--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A pessimist is a person who has had to listen to too many optimists.
-- Don Marquis

Attachment: pgp294QGev53p.pgp
Description: PGP signature

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Controlling project version
    ... over CVS. ... I've used CVS and Subversion quite a lot for a number of years. ... The branching in Subversion is a gazillion times better than CVS if you ... started playing with Git. ...
    (php.general)
  • Re: "Offline files" and Linux
    ... I didn't say git wasn't good. ... subversion, which is by your argument, a limited model, is perfectly good ... svn certainly isn't rubbish: it's just that the authors approached ... it from a perspective of `fix the uglinesses in CVS'. ...
    (uk.comp.os.linux)
  • Re: Why SVN?
    ... Is it because SVN is more like CVS than the other choices? ... Subversion is reasonably familiar to those who are used to the CVS paradigm ... however Git was written to achieve nothing more than managing the ... wish there was better handling in distributed revision control ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Linux BKCVS kernel history git import..
    ... I'm uploading my current git CVS import results to kernel.org right ... git tree _and_ in the old bkcvs tree, ... Of course, this _is_ the cvs import, which means that it's basically just ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Version Control Software
    ... including the old warhorse CVS. ... migrate to a different platform (server or PC), ... git may work, http://git.or.cz/, ... subversion may work better, http://subversion.tigris.org/, ...
    (comp.sys.hp.mpe)