On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 23:06 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: On Monday 13 November 2006 22:23, David Woodhouse wrote: > > So... if we discount the religious issue of the language it's written > > in, why _would_ we consider using Hg instead of git? > > > > I'd be much happier with git. The recent proliferation of version > > control systems isn't a good thing -- I strongly believe that in general > > we should stick with CVS where it's good (or entrenched) enough, and use > > git for for the rest. > > The reasons I have thus far are (in no particular order) > > A) even smaller server footprint than git You mean memory footprint? Can you show your measurements? > B) a user experience that isn't a complete disaster, leading to multiple > rewritten front ends that confuse the issue even further That was true a year or so ago because git itself basically _lacked_ a front end. It's not the case any more. > C) an upstream that is actually willing to listen to our problems and fix > them or help us to fix them That seems rather strange to me. What causes you to believe that git lacks such qualities in its upstream maintainers? (Sorry, my mail server at home is temporarily dead so I can't easily look back at my archives of the git mailing list). -- dwmw2 -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
