On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 02:48:46PM +0100, Helmut Eller wrote:
- Rafaâ Strzaliäski [2008-03-04 13:46+0100] writes:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:21 PM, Helmut Eller heller@common-lisp.net wrote:
What do people think of switching from CVS to Mercurial[*] ?
Why not GIT? SBCL switched from CVS to git with a success. Nikodem S. wrote very good tutorial.
The big three VCSes currently seem to be Git, Mercurial and Bazaar.
I certainly don't vote here, but I thought I'd bring one more data point.
I have used Monotone in the past, and then switched some of my repositories to Git, some to Mercurial. I found Git to be somewhat complex as others said. Mercurial was fast and nice *until* I had to do non-trivial things like cloning a large repository or sending several isolated deltas from the past via email.
I'm going back to Monotone. It may be somewhat slower, but it is *very* robust[0], is being actively developed, has very good documentation[1] and no complex dependencies. There is also support for visualizing the commit graph, among other interesting features.
I have never used bzr, so I can't compare it to Monotone.
J.
[0] Besides heavy black-box tests, invariants are checked all over the code, and there are tools for checking the integrity of a repository. [1] Disclaimer: I wrote a section of the manual (the tutorial on packets).