4 ms·
The whole site would be more convincing if you included a section on reasons why git is worse than X as well. I don't know git well enough to know these, except
by apu 18y ago
The whole site would be more convincing if you included a section on reasons why git is worse than X as well. I don't know git well enough to know these, except for one: handling large binary files that change frequently.
It would make it seem more honest if you admitted that git wasn't the alpha and the omega when it comes to version control. I think it would also show people that you've carefully thought about this and are not just a 'fanboy'.
- ptman 18y agoThe counter-arguments are there in the page source as a comment near the end.
- EliAndrewC 18y agoFrom the comment: THINGS GIT IS STILL NOT GOOD AT * windows (all) * large files (svn)
- asjo 18y ago> I don't know git well enough to know these, except for one: handling large binary files that change frequently. For the curious among us: what systems handle this better than git?
- apu 18y agoSubversion is not terrible at this. It stores binary diffs.
- pmjordan 18y agoMaybe they've improved this in recent versions, but I remember this being excruciatingly slow.
- silentbicycle 18y agoThis seems fundamentally different from what VCSs are usually designed for, and another category of tool may handle the problem better. Rsync might be a good start.