I use both Mercurial and git. The fans you quote are wrong. The major problem with mercurial is that you can't rewrite history. Keeping a patch separate from a moving base and all commits after the underlying softwares commits really requires git.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have the ability to bollix svn in ways that nobody else fathoms. Some > fans > promote Mercurial as "Git without pain". > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Lance Norskog <goks...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > One important caveat: git is a rope factory for hanging yourself. It > > badly > > > needs a Chef/Puppet-style "describe the end result" executor. Don't be > > > surprised when you have to re-build your whole checkout when something > > > unfathomable blows up. > > > > > > > I hear this warning from various people, but actually have seen this less > > with git than with various other systems. Hg especially seems to like to > > get a wedgy. > > > > Start with scripted workflows and work outward. > > > > > > -- > Lance Norskog > goks...@gmail.com >
