Re: Mercurial - Distributed SCM in Gnome (Was: Git vs SVN (was: Can we improve things?))

22 sep 2007 kl. 16.05 skrev Sean Kelley:


On 9/16/07, Mikael Hallendal <micke imendio com> wrote:
16 sep 2007 kl. 04.40 skrev Curtis Hovey:

On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 21:44 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Sun, 2007-09-16 at 01:10 +0200, Ali Sabil wrote:
  - Keith Packard did a fairly extensive research of which DSCM
to use for xorg and other fd.o projects, from a storage robustness /
performance point of view, and he wrote this excellent piece:

This document is a year old; projects that are under heavy development
like Bazaar are misrepresented. For instance bzr has changed it's
repository format, and is much faster that it was a year ago.

In fairness, so is Git. It's perceived complexity is to a large part
based on people trying it out a long time ago while it is as well
being developed and higher level abstractions are added.

In my opinion Mercurial has much of the benefits of GIT but with the
ease of use of SVN.  We dropped GIT and SVN at my company in favor of

In what way is Mercurial simpler to use than Git? Looking quickly at the Mercurial docs it seemed quite similar to Git in terms of complexity.

I've found most distributed scm's to be similarly complex (not considering early versions Git and Arch, etc). The complexity of distributed scm's are in the areas where CVS/Svn can't even operate.

  Mikael Hallendal


   Mikael Hallendal

Imendio AB,

desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org

Imendio AB,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]