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
B) a user experience that isn't a complete disaster, leading to multiple
rewritten front ends that confuse the issue even further
If you take a step back and consider the overall user experience, working with
yet another SCM is a turn for the worse, no matter how nice mercurial is. And
for that's what dist-hg will be for me, no other project I work with use
mercurial but quite a few use git. I think the same is true for many other
Fedora/Red Hat/whichever developers.
C) an upstream that is actually willing to listen to our problems and fix
them or help us to fix them
The same is true for the git community, though some issues are part of the
design and won't be changed (i.e. the index).
cheers,
Kristian
--
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
