Re: [Boost-users] Git vs SVN

On 1/28/2011 2:12 AM, Anthony Foiani wrote:

Edward --

Edward Diener writes:

...

I hope such a discussion entails a very strong justification of why Git is better than Subversion. I still do not buy it, and only find Git more complicated and harder to use than Subversion with little advantage. [...], but no one is bothering to explain why this latest thing has any value to Boost.

For my own development efforts, I've found Git to be an improvement over Subversion in the following ways:

1. Detached development.

The ability to do incremental check-ins without requiring a network connection is a huge win for me.

Why do you mean by "incremental checkins" ? If I use SVN I can make as many changes locally as I want.

2. Data backup.

If every developer (more, every developer's computer) has a full copy of the history on it, that is more distributed and easier to obtain than making sure you have transaction-perfect replication of your master SVN repository. (Or, at least, it was for me.)

"More distributed" means nothing to me. Someone really needs to justify this distributed development idea with something more than "its distributed so it must be good".

3. Experimentation.

In my experience, branching is cheaper and much lighter-weight in Git than in SVN.

Please explain "cheaper and lighter weight" ? It is all this rhetoric that really bothers me from developers on the Git bandwagon. I would love to see real technical proof.