2008/9/29 Armin Moradi <feng.shaun@xxxxxxxxx>: > So I wanted to know about the public opinions on which one is better, Git or > Subversion as versioning control system (VCS?). There is no "better". There is "different". git (and bzr, and hg, and others) are distributed VCSs. They have a fundamentally different model to svn and CVS. With svn and CVS, there is one master repository and all developers check out from it and commit to it as necessary. With git and bzr and hg and so on there are many repositories. Any of these can be merged with any other. This can be one repo which is considered the master and one on each developer's own machine, in which case they behave similarly to svn and CVS. However, you still have the extra feature that a developer can commit to zir own repository without committing to the master, and commit to the master only when the work is ready to share. If what you need is what svn does, and your coders all know svn, then you can use svn. If you have a large number of developers who do a lot of work on different branches, or who spend a lot of time away from the net on aeroplanes and so on, then you should use a distributed VCS like git or bzr or hg. If you're trying to pick what to use for a new project, it's quite likely the hosting arrangements for that project will dictate what you can use anyway. peace T -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
