Dear diary, on Fri, May 05, 2006 at 02:56:59AM CEST, I got a letter where linux@xxxxxxxxxxx said that... > Actually, AFAICT from looking at the mailing list history, it's not dirty > politics: the tie-breaker was the support and enthusiasm of the mercurial > developers. It passed with only minor comment on the git mailing list, > but it was a Big Thing to the hg folks. > > There are ups and downs. OpenSolaris is definitely the big fish in > the mercurial pond (that wasn't *meant* to sound like a recipe for > heavy metal toxicity), and will get lots of attention, but git has more > real-world experience. The big fish in the git pond is Linus and Linux. > > In any case, mercurial and git are really very similar, far closer > to each other than any third system, so it's not like the decision is > a descent into heresy. Hopefully some useful cross-pollination > can occur, and converting history from one to the other would be > simple if anyone ever wanted to. It's a philosophical question here, but I'd say that Git is much closer to Monotone than to any other version control system - I think it can be described as Monotone model with more elegant implementation (for some, at least ;), no certificates and restriction of one head per branch. And another important difference is that Monotone has persistent file identifiers, but I think that's about the only thing that would make Monotone more "file orientated". I'm not much of a Mercurial pro but it appears to me that the architectural differences there are larger, especially wrt. the revlogs and wholly quite a more file-oriented model. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Right now I am having amnesia and deja-vu at the same time. I think I have forgotten this before. - : 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