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

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 their "pull" address with a browsable url that actually can show history etc (the web interface borrowed, as it happens, from git). However I was a little disappointed when I found that I couldn't just copy files to somewhere in my web root to serve them via http, as works in darcs, bzr and git.

        The windows support for Git no longer requires cygwin - there is an mSys port (mSys is also used by Strawberry Perl, for example) which is apparently pretty good.

        The patch queue argument is a valid complaint; most of the core developers use an alternative approach called rebasing most of the time instead. As a consequence, Stacked Git [procode.org] which is really the best equivalent tool for git didn't get the same level of design review as the rest of git and has some annoying little niggles.

        However in general I'd agree that Mercurial makes it well inside the "worthy" class of tools.