From: Richard J. <ric...@op...> - 2010-10-29 03:16:47
|
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Jones <ric...@op...> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Bernhard Reiter <ber...@in...> wrote: >> Am Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2010 12:18:38 schrieb Thomas Arendsen Hein: >>> http://hg.intevation.org/mirrors/roundup-tracker.org/ >> >> Am Dienstag, 26. Oktober 2010 16:01:37 schrieb Ralf Hemmecke: >>> I probably have to add a few more comments if someone is interested in >>> this option. But I actually would love to get rid of SVN altogether. ;-) >> >> I am okay with SVN, but if DVCS access is needed, I prefer Mercurial. > > Similarly, I believe SVN is still appropriate for this project. Also, > please never make me use git. Agh, ok, I should've not opened the stupid emacs-vs-vi can. Should've explained myself. Well, here goes... I attempted to use git some time ago and could not wrap my head around it. I rejected it for much the same reasons I rejected RT and Bugzilla so, so many years ago. I understand that its UX has been improved, but still it seems like a tool that you can only reasonably learn while you have a git expert sitting next to you. Given I'd only have a passing relationship with it for this project, I'd constantly be afraid of causing significant work overhead for myself or others through mis-use, or potentially causing damage. I'm only just starting to learn the ropes of Mercurial, and again it's a passing relationship and I've already stuffed one push up for reasons I'm not entirely confident I understand :-) So, if we're to go down the DVCS route I'd much prefer Mercurial since I've already got a vague notion of how to do things with it - and I understand whilst they are both DVCSes they *are* different in fundamental ways. I'd like to try to learn how to work with DVCSes whilst only learning how to use one new tool, if that's possible. Also, I'm not going to help any sort of transition, so that's gonna need a volunteer :-) Richard |