Versioning system - Subversion Vs. Git

[keith smith]

I guess I need to dig deeper.  I thought that was the core of what a versioning system does -  saves each version at commit so you will have a different file each time you "save".

------------------------

Keith Smith

--- On Tue, 12/7/10, Judd Pickell <pickell at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Judd Pickell <pickell at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Versioning system - Subversion Vs. Git
To: "Main PLUG discussion list" <plug-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 1:54 PM

I haven't seen anything in your posts that would indicate that GIT
would be better than SVN for your needs, with the exception of the
following:

>
> Basically all I need is a way to track updates and keep someone from over writing someone else's changes.
>

Obviously there is no absolutely certain way to prevent someone from
overwriting another person's changes. However with GIT you would get a
more comprehensive way to compare and evaluate changes to figure out
how to solve the issue when such things happen. I prefer SVN myself,
but only more for familiarity than any other reason.

Although for my current employment I Perforce, which is actually okay.
I hated it at first, felt too much like Source Safe for my liking, but
having working on an entire project from beginning to end only using
Perforce I can say I actually kind of enjoy it. It's branching and
versioning work pretty well and I am rarely stuck on bad merge issues.

Sincerely,
Judd Pickell
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20101207/24084451/attachment.html>