Slash Boxes
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.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Any chance you've used git [] 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 has an experimental port that requires Cygwin. Mercurial comes with an patch stacking extension included (called Mercurial Queues), whereas for git you need one of several competing external add-ons (last I checked anyway).

      Really, it’s hard to find a huge difference. I went for Mercurial first due to the book and Mercurial Queues, but I haven’t used either SCM too much yet and I might switch to git part-way through if it turns out easier to convert my Subversion repo to it.

      (And the conversion difficulty is mostly the fault of Subversion! After having seen how much easier hg and git make everything, the comparative painfulness of doing anything with Subversion beyond a conflict-less svn commit is astonishing.)

      • 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