We migrated from svn to Git and the transition was smooth. We have tools that migrate the complete history along with the authors of the various files and the history from svn to Git. The migration was seamless and easy. We can see complete history of check-in as if we were …
Git is far superior at merging than SVN and I think every other VCS from what I've heard. It's also by far the most common so using it is a no brainer. Since it's written by the one true king Linus himself there can be no question to its design and architecture.
The only other VCS tool I've used in production is SVN. In my option Git is a better option for several reasons. Reason one is simplicity, actions like reviewing changes, committing or stashing changes, and managing multiple feature branches is much easier with Git. The second …
Front-End Web Developer, Office of Mediated Education
Chose Git
The two main alternatives to Git that I know about are Mercurial and Subversion. I've never used either one, but I know a bit about Subversion. From what I remember, Subversion requires a server. I don't anyone using any other source control other than Git, it seems to have …
Git is more advanced and easier to use. It has a very simple UI and a very efficient command-line tool. Git gives you flexibility and performance for the price, and has greatly increased the complexity of workflow. The overall performance is good. It caches information locally …
What I know is Perforce and CVS, such other repos tend to store deltas while Git stores the snapshots of the stuff as their commit ID's. This is what makes Git much much faster when you are developing on huge repos, since the checkouts are just instantaneous.
There are not many surviving alternatives for Git (maybe SVN) which in itself is quite meaningful. Git is the best versioning system of all time for programming, period. The difference between a good mathematical tool and sending .zip-s around emailing lists or FTP drives is so …
GIT being a widely used tool have better reliability than its peers and have stands out when we compare it on operational performance criteria. GIT with speedy and extensive branching capabilities have helped developers to use check in their code quickly and space efficient way. G…
It's easy to use and stable. These are the two strengths I see in Git. It does not need a lot of time to learn, but you still need to learn it. It has high stability. Bugs are not often to see in Git, and the community support is wonderful. With the help of GitHub, you can …
Compared to SVN, Git has a decentralized approach which increases collaboration in the team by enabling the local stored branches. There is no need to be connected to the repository(via an internet link) to work and commit code. Besides the fact that the performance of Git is …
I do not have much experience with other version control tools. Git is highly used everywhere and it is hard to find a development team that isn't using it. One thing I know is that with Git each developer has their own copy of a repository so they could technically work …
Git is the best Source Control Management Tool I've used. Every company, team, and project I've worked on professionally either used Git 100%, or was moving to Git, away from the alternatives like SVN. Git has all the features necessary, as well as a very large community of …
Git is by far the best version control system out there. It's open source, free, and fast. No other version control system I've ever used has had all three features.
Primarily we chose Mercurial, but our customers from abroad choose Git and recommended us to use it within a project that we are doing with them. Git for us is very easy way to contribute to these projects. But from the other side we see that more and more projects and …
For us, we use both Git and GitHub so they were a package. I suppose you could use Git with another VCS/hosting service to track changes if it fit well enough, but for us we just went with design out of the box. We pay for the GitHub private repository for the extra security.
I've used both Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different.
The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in …
Branching and merging are easy: Branching is a walk in the park. It feels like a natural part of the workflow. They are cheap (fast and consume very little space) so that you can branch whenever you want. This means you can sandbox your features and ideas till they are ready …
Git is pretty much the main choice today when choosing a source control system. There are still others out there like Subversion and Mercurial, however I have not evaluated these as they are older than Git and I tend to try to stay on the leading edge of what is in use for the …
Git is a distributed version control system. There is more flexibility to work with a bigger team. You can modify the same file and later merge all changes into a single file.
After using Subversion previously for a number of years, Git comes across as the new and improved source control approach. Git seems very suited to working with Agile:- branches can be created easily, allowing multiple developers to switch to them quickly, and having local …
While my experience is limited on Microsoft Team Foundation Server, my understanding is that it works only for windows development work. This leaves out developers of alternative languages. Since git allows any code to be placed in it (you could even use it to back up plain …
GIT is good to be used for faster and high availability operations during code release cycle. Git provides a complete replica of the repository on the developer's local system which is why every developer will have complete repository available for quick access on his system and they can merge the specific branches that they have worked on back to the centralized repository. The limitations with GIT are seen when checking in large files.
Git has met all standards for a source control tool and even exceeded those standards. Git is so integrated with our work that I can't imagine a day without it.
I am not sure what the official Git support channels are like as I have never needed to use any official support. Because Git is so popular among all developers now, it is pretty easy to find the answer to almost any Git question with a quick Google search. I've never had trouble finding what I'm looking for.
I've used both Apache Subversion & Git over the years and have maintained my allegiance to Git. Git is not objectively better than Subversion. It's different. The key difference is that it is decentralized. With Subversion, you have a problem here: The SVN Repository may be in a location you can't reach (behind a VPN, intranet - etc), you cannot commit. If you want to make a copy of your code, you have to literally copy/paste it. With Git, you do not have this problem. Your local copy is a repository, and you can commit to it and get all benefits of source control. When you regain connectivity to the main repository, you can commit against it. Another thing for consideration is that Git tracks content rather than files. Branches are lightweight and merging is easy, and I mean really easy. It's distributed, basically every repository is a branch. It's much easier to develop concurrently and collaboratively than with Subversion, in my opinion. It also makes offline development possible. It doesn't impose any workflow, as seen on the above linked website, there are many workflows possible with Git. A Subversion-style workflow is easily mimicked.
Git has saved our organization countless hours having to manually trace code to a breaking change or manage conflicting changes. It has no equal when it comes to scalability or manageability.
Git has allowed our engineering team to build code reviews into its workflow by preventing a developer from approving or merging in their own code; instead, all proposed changes are reviewed by another engineer to assess the impact of the code and whether or not it should be merged in first. This greatly reduces the likelihood of breaking changes getting into production.
Git has at times created some confusion among developers about what to do if they accidentally commit a change they decide later they want to roll back. There are multiple ways to address this problem and the best available option may not be obvious in all cases.