On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Keith Marshall wrote:
> On 25/07/12 16:50, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> I've taken the liberty of turning on Git for our project. CVS will
>> eventually go away, it isn't offered to any new projects, I haven't
>> learned Mercurial, and I use git with other projects. Anyone have any
>> huge heartaches about Git?
> I've used both, and I much prefer Mercurial. If push comes to shove I
> can, and I will adapt to using git when necessary, but given a free
> choice for my own projects, there is no contest -- I will choose hg
> every time. Why, given the apparent prevalence of git? Feature for
> feature, the two offer very similar capabilities, but I see some
> advantages with hg; for example:--
> * The command set is more consistently similar to that of, and therefore
> more familiar for users migrating from CVS.
> * I have always used either RCS or SCCS keywords in my project files; hg
> offers support for the RCS flavour; git supports neither. I find them
> useful, and I resent the attitude of the git trolls, who tell me that my
> projects must be broken as a result.
I'm under the impression that with the right amount of git hooks these
can be achieved with git as well but I understand your resentment
toward the attitude.
>> I will begin to store some source in it by this time tomorrow.
> Hardly a democratic move, without waiting for comment, but by all means
> go ahead; should I need the code, I can always clone it into hg anyway,
> just as I already manage my working copies of mingw-get, mingwrt and
> w32api, in parallel with the masters in CVS.
I wanted to show that I meant I wanted to begin using it ASAP. We
have discussed it before without consensus or action. Since you're
comfortable with being able to use Mercurial with the git repository
I'll plan to keep my plan in action unless someone else wants to