[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revision control

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: Revision control
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 05:16:47 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)


On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:16PM +0200, Arne Babenhauserheide wrote:

> [...] but I'd prefer to see the Hurd development more accessible, and
> even though there are many good candidates, Mercurial is best suited
> for that, at least in my opinion. 

How accessible it is, depends first and foremost on what most people
know. That probably leaves Mercurial and git as the only serious

Among those two, git is the one I know myself. My decision for learning
git rather than Mercurial was influenced mostly by Xorg's (or in fact
Keith Packard's) decision, but also other things like the fact that
Savannah offers git hosting but no Mercurial hosting.

Once I actually started learning git, I quickly became convinced that I
made the right choice. The thing I really like about git is that, unlike
almost all other software available today, it really follows the UNIX
philosophy, both in concept and in implementation.

git, like UNIX, is based on a couple of very simple yet powerful ideas,
and a set of basic tools doing the work. On top of that, you get a set
of high-level scripts to easily perform all typical operations; but the
internals are not hidden behind a limiting interface -- once you
understand how things work, you can use the low-level tools to do about
anything you can imagine.

Not knowing Mercurial, I can't really judge. But I have a very hard time
believing that any other system comes even *close* to the power and
flexibility of git... git is not a shiny toy with idiot-proof UI; it's a
powerful tool for serious users.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]