3 ms·
Taking the question literally, obviously not. If git became a problem due to some unforseen licensing issue or whatever mercurial does the job just fine right n
by harry8 7y ago
Taking the question literally, obviously not. If git became a problem due to some unforseen licensing issue or whatever mercurial does the job just fine right now and has for years.
As a heads up if you're stuck on cvs, svn or other stupid vcs due to "old-codgers" in your office, mercurial has a shallower learing curve and easier ui to get the same job done which may make it easier to switch.
Either git or mercurial, who cares? Either of them until there's something better. Never deal with SVN & CVS branches and merges again. Feel the immediate team productivity boost which will pay for the initial learning curve costs by day 2. Seriously.
- choeger 7y ago> day 2 Unfortunately, you have to settle on some workflow for that. And this settling will take some experience and discussion. So "day 2" sounds very overambitious to me.
- harry8 7y agoUse the existing svn/cvs workflow with the trivial changes for git/mercurial. Central repo, push when you're done to master. Branches are all but unusable on cvs/svn anyway - if you do use them, feel the win and laugh with glee. When everyone is on top of that basic workflo then you do something incrementally better. Really it's day 2, really. I've seen this more than once now. The fight to get to that point where the changeover happens is getting easier but I'm sure it still sucks.