[calambrac]

Why do you think subversion is easier to start with? You have to understand the difference between the local copy and the repository, you have to manage the server, you might have to deal with the incredibly painful corruption issues that pop up every now and then.

And I personally don't think the day-to-day use is any easier, either, unless you're only working with one branch, and even then, the only 'savings' is you don't have to stage first.

[discojesus]

Why do you think subversion is easier to start with?

the program model of a system like subversion pretty much == the user model for source control for someone who is new to source control. Hence, easy to start with.

You have to understand the difference between the local copy and the repository

Which is about as hard as understanding the difference between "your wallet" and "the bank."

And I personally don't think the day-to-day use is any easier, either, unless you're only working with one branch

Which he would be almost all of the time, and when he comes to grok version control pretty well (as stated) he could certainly move on to something like git.

[calambrac]

the program model of a system like subversion pretty much == the user model for source control for someone who is new to source control.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

Which is about as hard as understanding the difference between "your wallet" and "the bank."

Once you've grokked it, yes, it's simple, but if you're managing your own system on your laptop, for instance, it is a bit of a leap to wonder why you have to install the server in one place and work in another, etc. It's not that it's hard, it's that it's harder than git.

I like how you chopped off the "and even then, the only 'savings' is you don't have to stage first" part of my statement about working with only one branch.

[discojesus]

I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

Sorry, I'm going to go with Eric Sink's opinion on this over yours (nothing personal). It seems pretty obvious to me that subversion's program model is way closer to the naive user model than git's is. And yes, that is an advantage, since the user has explicitly stated that he is an absolute beginner to source control.

Once you've grokked it, yes, it's simple, but if you're managing your own system on your laptop, for instance, it is a bit of a leap to wonder why you have to install the server in one place and work in another, etc.

He doesn't need to do that at all - for example, if he's running a windows machine, he can just install TortoiseSVN and set up repositories on his local machine. Dead simple.

It's not that it's hard, it's that it's harder than git.

I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

I like how you chopped off the "and even then, the only 'savings' is you don't have to stage first" part of my statement about working with only one branch.

Because it's false - the "only savings" an absolute beginning user gets is that it is much easier to grok than git if you're new to source control.

Sorry, but this will have to end here - this is getting pretty inane. If you feel that git is obviously much easier than SVN for an absolute beginner, fire of an email to Eric Sink and argue with him.

[calambrac]

It seems pretty obvious to me that subversion's program model is way closer to the naive user model than git's is.

You assert this without saying why, except to say Eric Sink said it first. You could at least provide a link to his explanation, I couldn't find the magic Google incantation to find it myself.

He doesn't need to do that at all - for example, if he's running a windows machine, he can just install TortoiseSVN and set up repositories on his local machine. Dead simple.

My bad, I misused the word server. I meant that best case you're still setting up the repository in one folder and then doing all your work in another. On the premise that managing and understanding why you're managing two places is harder than just working in one, git is simpler. I didn't just make that up, that's how the systems work.