On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:19:49PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 09:53:59PM -0500, Robert La Ferla wrote: > > Does anyone know why they chose Mercurial instead of Subversion? I have > > yet to see a comparison between HG and SVN so I'm curious what the > > advantages are. I use Subversion and like it much more than CVS. In my > > extremely short experience with HG, I found it less intuitive to use. > > Subversion has a centralized development model. > > E.g. in [1], the Subversion developers themselves explained why > Subversion wouldn't fit Linus' development model. > > The times when CVS was the only known open source version control system > are over. There are currently more than half a dozen alternatives, and > everyone uses what suits his needs best. ... > [1] http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-linus.html Interesting article. svn is certainly much better than cvs, technically, but still too similar in the development model. I felt a distributed SCM would fit the kernel development model much better, and would also support individual developers better. The ability to work offline, especially doing local commits and easily create and destroy branches for experiments or parallel development, is what I thought would help improve the quality of the patches whch end up being pushed to Linus. No more "Ooops, make it compile" commits in the public repository, as this can be cleaned up locally before pushing out. We're not there yet with the current mercurial setup/usage, but it gets better ;-) I looked at svk (too slow), monotone (ridiculously slow), codeville (immature/incomplete), git/cogito (too complicated), and mercurial. The last one worked best for me. Mauro uses git to prepare the dvb-v4l tree for Linus, and he agreed that we should use mercurial and not git for linuxtv.org. Johannes _______________________________________________ linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
