AnkhSVN versus VisualSVN
I currently use AnkhSVN to integrate subversion into Visual Studio. Is there any reason I should switch to VisualSVN?
AnkhSVN is free (in more than one sense of the word) while VisualSVN costs $50. So right there unless I’m missing some great feature of VisualSVN I don’t see any reason to switch.
4 Solutions collect form web for “AnkhSVN versus VisualSVN”
I used VisualSVN until Ankh hit 2.0, and ever since, I’ve abandoned VisualSVN. Ankh has surpassed VisualSVN in functionality, in my mind, and all the 1.x perf and integration issues are gone.
I recently tried Ankh but quickly switched back to visual SVN. Because:
- Better commit dialog (use UI of tortoise)
- No refresh problems (which i had using ankh)
Imho visual svn is easilty worth its money
For me, VisualSVN is pretty, but useless. AnkhSvn on the other hand, after it came in v2 as an scc provider, it works very good.
VisualSVN tries to think for you, which is not an good thing, the user should be the controller, not the software.
The main thing is that VisualSVN uses TortoiseSVN for nearly all of its UI. So you only really have to set up one client (preferred diff viewer, etc), and you can take advantage of things like the same “Previous messages” button on the Commit dialog, whether you’re committing from Explorer or Visual Studio.