Skip to main content
Game Development

Return to Answer

update broken link
Source Link
congusbongus
congusbongus
  • 14.9k
  • 59
  • 91

Git

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/http://thkoch2001.github.io/whygitisbetter/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

Git

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

Git

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://thkoch2001.github.io/whygitisbetter/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

fixed capitalization. Git is not an acronym, and if anything it may even be all lowercase (as it is spelled in the top left of the homepage).
Source Link
Ricket
Ricket
  • 14.9k
  • 6
  • 68
  • 82

GITGit

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

GIT

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

Git

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

added 9 characters in body
Source Link
David McGraw
David McGraw
  • 4.1k
  • 2
  • 33
  • 38

GIT

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

It isn't like one is better than the other. Just choose which way you prefer to work. They all will help you get where you want to go, they just do it in a different way.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

GIT

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

It isn't like one is better than the other. Just choose which way you prefer to work. They all will help you get where you want to go, they just do it in a different way.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

GIT

Recently I have been on the Git bandwagon (I've used SVN and Mercurial). So far I really like what I get with Git. It is far from a pain to setup and more development tools are starting to adopt using it.

It's a distributed version control system. This allows for us to have our own independent trunk-like area. I can work in my own area and invite you over to view changesets very easily. I can rollback in my own space without mucking up the central repo. I can commit, branch, and do everything you can do with SVN locally. I really like having this control.

With SVN, you need access to your repo in order to commit. What if you're on the road or at a cafe with no internet? Not good.

Sure, SVN is much simpler to learn but I think the advantages of distributed source control largely outweigh the fact that it has a little learning curve.

I also like that it is smarter about merging.

A major downside of GIT is that it stores the entire history locally. (Yes, you can perform surgery to cut that down, but it's the default behavior). It's not a problem at all for source files, but if you have a large project with gigabytes of asset data, it becomes a problem quickly. In my current experience, I'd recommend GIT only for smaller or source-only repos.

If you're still curious about GIT, check out http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/ for some good information/metrics. Also check see https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparsion

added URL
Source Link
Cyclops
Cyclops
  • 3.1k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 39
reorganize paragraphs
Source Link
David McGraw
David McGraw
  • 4.1k
  • 2
  • 33
  • 38
Added a comment on it keeping the whole history
Source Link
Rachel Blum
Rachel Blum
  • 748
  • 5
  • 10
added 9 characters in body
Source Link
Cyclops
Cyclops
  • 3.1k
  • 3
  • 34
  • 39
Post Made Community Wiki
Source Link
David McGraw
David McGraw
  • 4.1k
  • 2
  • 33
  • 38