Re: [Boa Constr] Question on opinions...

[Werner F. B. <wer...@fr...>]

On 27/11/2010 11:41, Werner F. Bruhin wrote:
> On 26/11/2010 11:53, Werner F. Bruhin wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Source code control
>>
>> I really believe that CVS is a big problem here, it's support for
>> merges/branches etc is not good.  Windows 7 doesn't have a client which
>> is officially maintained .......
>>
>> I use SVN for my own stuff but frankly wasn't impressed with it's merge
>> support, also it is supposed to be getting better.  Will know in a
>> couple of weeks when I merge my latest stuff back to the trunk.
>>
>>    From what I read/hear is that Git, Mercurial and Bazaar are doing a
>> much better job in allowing to merge and resync with the base, i.e. to
>> support distributed development.
>>
>> Branches would allow a contributor to make his/her changes in an
>> isolated way, anyone could test it (without having to merge/patch) and
>> when done it should be easy to create a patch and/or merge back to the
>> main trunk or future version.
>>
>    From what I found it looks like Git would be the "front runner" for a
> change.
>
> The following give I think a good overview on Git and how it compares to
> SVN and others.
>
> http://whygitisbetterthanx.com/
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitSvnComparison
>
> When I get a moment (probably in a week or two) I will look a bit closer
> at Git and actually try it out for my own stuff.
>
Here a couple more:

http://www.infoq.com/articles/dvcs-guide

http://importantshock.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/git-vs-mercurial/

The later one provides comparison of GIT and Mercurial, a bit outdated 
as it is over 2 years old but still interesting.

The more I read I think that either of these would be fine, they both of 
large followings and are supported on sourceforge which should hopefully 
mean that a transition would not be too difficult/time consuming.


Werner