From: Keith M. <kei...@us...> - 2012-07-25 20:06:37
|
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 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. -- Regards, Keith. |