Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

acme (189)

acme
  (email not shown publicly)
http://www.astray.com/

Leon Brocard (aka acme) is an orange-loving Perl eurohacker with many varied contributions to the Perl community, including the GraphViz module on the CPAN. YAPC::Europe was all his fault. He is still looking for a Perl Monger group he can start which begins with the letter 'D'.

Journal of acme (189)

Wednesday December 19, 2007
05:48 AM

Mercurial

[ #35147 ]
I've been using Mercurial for the past few weeks on a project and it does exactly what I expect it to do. Everything works, and I especially like hg serve .
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Any chance you've used git [git.or.cz] and can make sane comments comparing the two? We're getting tired of Subversion here at work and we're looking for something sane.

    • I’ll vouch for both. The technical bedrock of git is more robust, though trades this for repository compactness, but both are similar in their underlying approach (both implement a content-addressable file system). Mercurial is easier to come up to speed with, and it’s also got a great book, however git is getting easier all the time. They’re both very fast, and are generally similar in most characteristics. At the time of this writing, Mercurial works just fine on Windows whereas git only

      • For various reasons I've been asked to comment on this :-). Bear in mind I'm no real expert on Mercurial.

        I'm not sure that Mercurial's revlog can be called content-addressable; a cursory glance shows a per-file backing store, and Sun reported that they can wedge it in nasty ways by interrupting it at inopportune moments, which seems quite non-content-addressed behaviour. It does use a revision hash, sure, but I don't think it uses it for file revisions too.

        It is nice that they've managed to combine th