Git or SVN, what?

Question

git

There is a small website of an online store, which is being developed by means of 2-4 people, at different times in different ways. Now everything is built on SVN, but some smart people advise to switch to Git. What I dislike most about SVN is having a million junk files in the .svn folder. What are the main advantages of Git?

Answer 1

If the only thing you don't like about SVN is having extra service files in each directory, then you can upgrade to SVN 1.7, which no longer has this.

Answer 2

IMHO, if there are no more than ten developers and not from all over the world, then svn is preferable, especially if svn is already used

Answer 3

Git also has a .git folder with "a bunch of junk files" so if that's the only reason for the move, then it's pointless. In general, you can stay in svn and try git through git-svn. And then decide.

Answer 4

I used (and use, on different projects) both SVN and git, the first one for a long time, the second one for about a year. If there is a choice, I will always choose git, regardless of the number of developers, primarily for the convenience of branch \ merge, for speed (since the entire repository is local) and for other advantages, which have already been written a lot. In my opinion, if you understand git, then you will not return to SVN of your own free will. But that's from a developer's point of view.
PS: in git, the .git folder is only at the root, while in SVN it is in each folder.

Answer 5

If everything suits you in svn, then you don’t need to go anywhere.

Answer 6

this topic has already been erased, do not be lazy and go to Google, they will not write anything new to you.

Answer 7

Forget it, you don't need git. Especially in your case, you can perfectly use external from svn, which can only be emulated with bones in the git. Yes, and your version is flat, so all the advantages of brunching and merging will not affect.
If I'm not mistaken, now fresh svn stores everything just like git in the same folder at the root of the project, so there is no difference in this regard either.

Answer 8

It seems to me that all this is primarily the preference of the one who works with VCS. In general, I like mercurial more for its simple syntax.

Answer 9

Git is definitely better and more convenient than SVN / CVS. If you have the ability / resources / administrators who can competently translate SVN -> Git development - go ahead. Don't stay in the red. Given that the developers of the site do not care.

Answer 10

They say git merges well, not like svn (I think many people were convinced of this during large mergers of branches). Previously, I only touched git a little, I didn’t work closely with it, but now my team of 4 developers is moving to git. Time will tell which is better.

Answer 11

How many people, so many opinions.

Answer 12

What annoys me in git when working with a "central" repository (and this is how you work in svn and will work when you need to store code not with developers, but on the neutral side) is a two-phase commit. Those. when you first commit the change to your local repository, and then don't forget to commit the local repository to the central one. IDEs don't visually show the local repository's dirty status like they do with svn with a working copy, so it's easy to forget all this crap. And then comes the rebase and other meta things to serve this orchestra across branches and merges, which is sung about in every blog.
To solve the problem with SVN folders, upgrade to 1.7, or use export (I don't know what your task is and why folders annoy you).

Answer 13

If you are looking at solutions that do not store anything superfluous locally at all (all workspace configurations are stored on the server), look at Perforce.

Answer 14

Git vs SVN Round one. Fight :D

Answer 15

If you haven't switched to git yet, go :)