On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 8:47 AM vvs <vvs...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/25/23, Blake McBride <bl...@arahant.com> wrote: > > Have a development project going on for several years with a fair-sized > > team. The code base grows immensely. Git forces you to download the > whole > > damn thing - every change ever made. No one wants that! Sometimes it > can > > take more than an hour to clone a repo! Subversion gives you the version > > you want and lets you switch to a different version trivially. > > Sorry, but that's just not true. Just use --depth with appropriate > number of last history commits to get only that much history. And it > still allows you to commit your changes back. I always use it when I'm > interested only in the project' latest source code. > > Another option would be to download repository snapshot archive (this > depends on Git' hosting, but available on e.g. GitHub). > > Not that I'm surprised to see that people do biased judgement all the > time. And not that I care much anyway. >
Although you addressed one of its many shortcomings, you conveniently failed to mention the others (e.g. complexity, central repo). In terms of complexity, GIT is plenty simple in simple cases but quickly becomes unwieldy even for experts. --blake
