I'm primarily a
User Developer Sysadmin A mixture Something else entirely .. ( 459 votes ~ 10 comments )
You are not currently logged in. If you do not have a user account then please consider creating one and logging in before you post your comment. This will allow you to track replies to your comment, and take part in the site much more freely.
To add your comment, fill in all the boxes below and then preview it to make sure you're happy with the way that it looks.
This is the comment you were replying to, attached to the weblog Migration to mercurial
#5 Re: Migration to mercurial Posted by Steve (80.68.xx.xx) on Mon 26 Nov 2007 at 13:01 I don't consider subversion as anything other than than a slight improvement over CVS. In my opinion subversion was designed to look, feel, and behave much like CVS but with a few minor changes such as atomic commit, and rename-tracking. It seems to me that if you're going to migrate away from CVS that you should pick something significantly better than it, not just something witha few of the issues fixed. For me that means distributed. That immediately limitted my choice to three systems: darcs git mercurial (There are more distributed systems, I ignored them.) Darcs is adequate, but I use it at work and we've had problems with memory usage when merging changesets, also permissions issues are a recurring problem. (Probaby this is more our fault than darcs's) Git in theory I like, but in practise the need to "repack" the repository to stop it from consuming disk space is a big issue. So is the sheer number of commands and the possability of cnfusion. So mercurial pretty much win by default! Having said that mercurial does have a lot of nice things to recommend it, and I'm enjoying it a lot. The only minor problem is that the version in etch doesn't support symlinks; but a backport of the version which does is available on backports.org. Steve
I don't consider subversion as anything other than than a slight improvement over CVS. In my opinion subversion was designed to look, feel, and behave much like CVS but with a few minor changes such as atomic commit, and rename-tracking.
It seems to me that if you're going to migrate away from CVS that you should pick something significantly better than it, not just something witha few of the issues fixed.
For me that means distributed.
That immediately limitted my choice to three systems:
(There are more distributed systems, I ignored them.)
Darcs is adequate, but I use it at work and we've had problems with memory usage when merging changesets, also permissions issues are a recurring problem. (Probaby this is more our fault than darcs's)
Git in theory I like, but in practise the need to "repack" the repository to stop it from consuming disk space is a big issue. So is the sheer number of commands and the possability of cnfusion.
So mercurial pretty much win by default! Having said that mercurial does have a lot of nice things to recommend it, and I'm enjoying it a lot. The only minor problem is that the version in etch doesn't support symlinks; but a backport of the version which does is available on backports.org.
Steve
Posting Format:
Inappropriate comments will be removed.
Some help on entry formatting is available
Username:
Password:
[ Advanced Login ]
Register Account
