Centralized vs Distributed Version Control in 90 seconds

[josh_m]

The only benefit I truly see is the ability to commit locally and quickly switch branches. Nothing else in this video is really true, IMO. And they didn't explain how git solves the problems of svn.

[mr.computer]

Thanks a lot sir you cleared my all doubts 💯 %%%%

[dankellett]

Centralized and DVCS serve different needs.

One main flaw with the argument of it being slow when integrating on centralized systems across a network... this is now not relevant with today's network speeds.

Also the argument "unsolicited changes" breaking a build is also not relevant when you implement continuous integration practices and automatically build and unit test. Viola, no need for an integration manager like you would in DVCS and anyone on the team breaking the build is notified immediately for resolve.

[akanshiroy]

Very nice it's really useful for me

[maplmage]

i heard svn and cvs also added a feature to make a local commit, similar to how it's done with git.

[pcretrogamer]

This sounds like it might be useful if you have multiple programmers working on the same bits of code - but thats not going to happen very often...

Merging is not a problem - in Subversion it happens automatically unless someone changes the same lines of code - which might happen 0.0001% of the time. If many developers changed the same line of code and committed with Git, its not going to handle it automatically either.

Theres nothing here that is a convincing reason to use Git.

[simmzzzz]

Great for brainless people like me! deeerp!