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
I pour myself a cup of strong coffee. :-)
-- Jarkko Hietaniemi
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
git? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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