Subject: Re: [boost] [git] Mercurial?
From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-03-19 10:09:04
On 19/03/2012 14:02, Daryle Walker wrote:
> Git has a competitor called Mercurial? If we're moving to a
> Distributed-VCS, should we go to Mercurial instead of Git? They're
> kind-of like CVS vs. Subversion, except I think they came up in
> parallel. (While Subversion was designed as an updated CVS.) I
> think Git was made up of a bunch of script hacks, while Mercurial was
> a regimented single program. I don't have a preference, but I want to
> make sure we consider the rival options.
Actually git was written from zero in C. Scripts only if you write them
on top of git, extremely efficient and steep learning curve, but
rewarding to use!
I'm using git daily together with p4 integration (for SOX compliant
history) and it's really great for team collaboration.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk