3 ms·
You are wrong. I've used most of those and, while on the surface they may appear to be equivalent to git, none of them comes close to having its feature set. Gi
by __david__ 16y ago
You are wrong. I've used most of those and, while on the surface they may appear to be equivalent to git, none of them comes close to having its feature set. Git is popular for a reason--it is complicated, but amazingly powerful.
The only non-git DVCS I'd even consider or recommend is darcs--its model is different enough to make it much better for certain workflows than git. It is also incredibly easy to understand and dead simple to use.
- eru 16y agoMercurial is actually more or less equivalent to git. You just need to activate some plugins for, say, rebasing. (I do prefer git, though, for religious reasons.) I've tried using darcs a few years ago (it was my first DVCS system, actually). Did they fix the exponential runtimes one got occasionally? If yes, I'd probably give it another go.
- __david__ 16y agoYes, darcs 2.0 fixed it or at least drastically minimized it. The problems occurred when there were lots of conflicts between patches. If you try to minimize conflicts (getting often, amending conflicting patches before pushing them) then you'll never run into the problem, even with the old darcs.
- shubber 16y agoIt may have improved a lot recently, but the one project I was using Darcs on had this workflow: 1. Pull revisions 2. Discover local workspace was corrupted. 3. Delete local workspace and restart. I'm not a fan of Darcs either. :)
- __david__ 16y agoCorrupted how? (the repo data in the _darcs/ dir, or your local working copy?) I've used darcs extensively for years and have never experienced this.
- ryanpetrich 16y agoThe return of SourceSafe.