Things I love about git

<i>Subversion has no github because subversion can’t have a github.</i><p>Actually, it does have a github. It's called "github" and is available at <a href="http://github.com" rel="nofollow">http://github.com</a>.<p>See <a href="https://github.com/blog/966-improved-subversion-client-support" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/blog/966-improved-subversion-client-suppo...</a>

<i>2. Partial commits<p>Commit file X, then commit file Y.</i><p>You can also commit only a part of file X! `git add -i` brings you to an interactive 'add' mode where you can view, split and add each hunk individually.

I'm on an internship through my University, writing a report for my current employer (as a requirement of said internship program) about their current centralized version control solution (Perforce) and comparing it to a distributed one (Git). Finding sources explaining why Git is "better" is easy, but finding any one arguing the other side is proving to be incredibly difficult.<p>Are there simply no benefits to using a centralized system, or is no one bragging about them like all of these Git fans?

&#62; Bisect for bug hunting awesomeness<p>svn-bisect [1]<p>[1] <a href="http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?svn-bisect" rel="nofollow">http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?svn-bisect</a>

<i>2. Partial commits... Edited file X and made a fix to file Y? No problem. Commit file X, then commit file Y.</i><p>partial commits can be made @ line level also, w/ `git add --edit`<p><pre><code> -e, --edit Open the diff vs. the index in an editor and let the user edit it... </code></pre> <a href="http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-add.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-add.html</a>

Subversion actually records merge metadata in recent versions. In my experience though it often still fails to work when working in branches.

<i>No github means no pull requests.</i><p>What? Git <i>has</i> pull requests.