On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 03:42:33 -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Friday 07 January 2011 03:33:48 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: >> On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:53:06 +0100, Don wrote: >> > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >> What are the advantages of Mercurial over git? (git does allow >> >> multiple branches.) >> >> >> >> Andrei >> > >> > Essentially political and practical rather than technical. >> > >> > Mercurial doesn't have the blatant hostility to Windows that is >> > evident in git. It also doesn't have the blatant hostility to svn (in >> > fact, it tries hard to ease the transition). >> >> I don't think Git's SVN hostility is a problem in practice. AFAIK >> there are tools (git-svn comes to mind) that can transfer the contents >> of an SVN repository, with full commit history and all, to a Git repo. >> Also, it will only have to be done once, so that shouldn't weigh too >> heavily on the decision. >> >> > Technically, I don't think there's much difference between git and >> > Mercurical, compared to how different they are from svn. >> >> Then my vote goes to Git, simply because that's what I'm familiar with. >> >> -Lars > > Well, you get the full commit history if you use git-svn to commit to an > svn repository. I'm not sure it deals with svn branches very well > though, [...]
Here's a page that deals with importing an SVN repo in git: http://help.github.com/svn-importing/ Actually, based on that page, it seems Github can automatically take care of the whole transfer for us, if we decide to set up there. -Lars