Pros y contras entre el equipo centralizado y distribuido para el control de versiones [cerrado]

It depends what you're more comfortable with.

Subversion is simpler because it's a centralized server. There's only a single repository you are worried about, that's the centralized repository.

In Git, you have two repositories (at least). One is the one on your local machine, and the centralized one. However Git allows you to comparten your local repository with others.

However, because Git uses more than a single repository, it's more flexible in the way it can be used. For example, I don't want to commit to the central repository unless I have a code change that can be applied without rompiendo la construcción. That means I can't commit to the central repository just to control my work. This isn't the case with Git. My private repository is mine, and I can save changes, make branches, etc. and then push my changes to the central repository when I am done.

Git was somewhat more difficult to setup than Subversion, but that's been changing over the last couple of years.

With a team of four people, you may like the flexibility of Git. If you don't have a central repository, you have to use Git and share your changes between each other.

If you are new to version control, I recommend sticking with Subversion because it's easier. If you know Subversion and not Git, I would choose Git just to learn how to use it, so the next time I apply to a job and they ask "Do you know Git?", you can say yes.

Either one will do the job you need.