Why is branching/merging in SVN more painful than with Git?

Question

Possible Duplicate:
How and/or why is merging in Git better than in SVN?

I often hear that branching/merging in SVN is more painful than with Git, can anyone give a concrete but simple example?

Answer 1

Branching in git and SVN is almost as easy. The problem is when you come to merge. Before SVN version 1.6 (if memory serves me right), SVN didn't record any information about merge points. As a result if you merged branches A and B, continued development on A and B, and then tried to do the same merge again you would end up needing to resolve the same conflicts you had the first time around.

So, that's the first big problem. SVN now tracks merge meta data, but I don't know how good it is. Git was designed to merge, in SVN it was just an afterthought. Git has very good and complete set of functions to help you handle private local branches, and track remote public branches. Git also comes with great visualization tools that let you see branch and merge points.

-Bart

Answer 2

Additionally, although it's not about branching/merging being "easy," in SVN branches are global. This means if you use branches in a distributed-style (lots of small feature or bug fix branches) then everyone on the project is going to have to sort through dozens or hundreds of branches that have nothing to do with them.

There are ways around that, but it's a big reason why many SVN shops either don't use branches, or only use long-lived branches.