On 5/3/06, Andreas Ericsson <ae@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 May 2006, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: >> >>>On 5/3/06, Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>>Dear diary, on Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:39:07AM CEST, I got a letter >>>>where Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@xxxxxxxxx> said that... >>>> >>>>>On 5/3/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>BTW, do you know why GIT has not been selected as SCM for OpenSolaris? >>>>>(they choose Mercurial). >>>> >>>>I think it's explained somewhere in their forums (or mailing lists or >>>>whatever they actually _are_). >>> >>>I only found the announcement, not the rationales. >> >>http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-April/000366.html >> >>Looks like they didn't buy the argument about the uselessness of >>recording file renames. > > > The final evaluations are available from here (at the very bottom > of the page): > > http://opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/ > > It looks like Mercurial doesn't support renames either, but a lot > of users are asking for it to be supported. So I don't think that's > the reason. It looks more like they didn't enjoy porting GIT 1.2.2 > (as 1.2.4 was found to not work in all cases) to Solaris and the > tester ran into some problems with the conflict resolution support. > > My own reading of the two final evaluations for GIT and Mercurial > leaves me feeling like GIT is a more mature tool which is faster > and more stable then Mercurial. GIT seemed to be more reliable > during testing then Mercurial was, despite the cloning issue. > Which makes me surprised that OpenSolaris selected Mercurial instead. >
Would be fantastic to see a fair comparison of the two tools but I can't find anything useful on the web. -- Paolo http://paolociarrocchi.googlepages.com - : send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html