GIT vs. CVS vs. SVN

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On Behalf
> Of Jerry Feldman
> 
> Thanks for the responses. In essence, my company uses CVS, but here in the
> Boston Office we will be using GIT. Since we have a very small development
> team, GIT seems to be a good fit. Over the years I have used many source
> control projects ranging from IBM mainframe to SCCS, RCS, ClearCase, and
> many others. I don't think the git command set is overly large. I think
the
> major issue is conceptual. Since I have been in this office we have not
had
> too much development other than some customizations for clients, but we
> now have 2 experienced developers (including me) and 2 junior developers
> in the office. Most of our development will probably be in scripting for
some
> of the new products we now have in our inventory. While most of our
> projects will involved no more than 2 people, I do need to make sure that
all
> the data is backed up properly.

Although there's nothing *wrong* with what you're saying, you seem to be
applying the opposite of logic.  A small development team is very conducive
to svn (centralized) and you get benefits by doing so, as mentioned in my
other email.  And, since you have a small development team, you don't get
the main benefits offered by git (decentralized.)

With a decentralized system, the backup plan is unclear...  Literally
everyone's laptop or workstation or whatever they're using must be backed
up.  N times the data to backup, if you're supporting N users.  But
obviously if centralized, you just backup the central repo, and then you can
make a calculated assessment of risk, to backup peoples' laptops or not.