3 ms·
Before this devolves into a git versus hg holy war by people who never read the linked blog post, I'll point out that they chose hg over svn. It's mainly a chee
by jdludlow 16y ago
Before this devolves into a git versus hg holy war by people who never read the linked blog post, I'll point out that they chose hg over svn. It's mainly a cheerleader piece for DVCS with the git versus hg choice being a minor point.
- atrain34 16y agoyes, please read the linked blog post. they used both hg and git quite a bit but found hg easier to host, use and move over from subversion (convert repos but also command line). so yes, cheerleader piece you are right on that. not much cheerleading for hg these days.
- jorgem 16y ago>> not much cheerleading for hg these days. Joel Spolsky seems to like it: http://hginit.com/ http://hginit.com/
- foljs 16y agoHG: liked by the guy that gave us Visual Basic for applications, some nice essays, tons of tedious advice on how to hire the top programmers, a ho-hum bug tracking system and an abomination of a meta-language for creating web-apps, both created by said "top" programmers.
- ams6110 16y agoI switched from svn to hg for personal stuff too. Like the author of the blog post, I looked at git and found that it was nonintuitive. hg commands are close enough to svn commands that I felt more comfortable sooner. I don't really get the big issue with branches in svn though. Branches and tags are "cheap" operations in svn, and making personal branches, etc. was something I used to do. Merging back into trunk was never a huge issue either. Maybe I've been lucky; also our team was not very big and different people weren't often working on the same source files at the same time.