How is DVCS different from other version control systems

If you have been using other version control systems such as Subversion (SVN) or Perforce you should feel right at home, you will find a DVCS command set is very similar. The main difference between a central version control system and a distributed one is that the distributed system does not rely on one central server. Every person with a repository also has the full history of changes. Each repository is independent.

In Subversion, for example, each developer checks out a copy from the main server, works on changes, and commits them back to the central server. In case of conflicting changes made by other developers, the developer is notified and asked to merge the changes. In a DVCS world, things are different. Commits are local, and you can commit several dozen changes locally without ever communicating with anyone else.

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback!

Why was this unhelpful?

2 Archived comments

  1. User avatar

    Jason Cusati

    I don't understand why you would want to do this.  Can someone please elaborate on the theory here, what gains to we get using a distributed Repo.  It sounds like we are adding layers of complexity to something that already works just fine.  

    16 May 2013
    1. User avatar



      This page is meant as a taster.  There are lots of discussions out there on the web about why or why not use distributed version control.  So many that we don't elaborate them here in our docs. Instead, we assume people are here because they are already on board with using DVCS and want to use it.

      You can google for "why is dvcs better' and find lots. Including a Atlassian blog here:



      17 May 2013
Powered by Confluence and Scroll Viewport