On 10/06/2011 22:31, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Trass3r"<u...@known.com> wrote in message news:op.vwu1q2lv3ncmek@enigma...
Am 10.06.2011, 13:48 Uhr, schrieb Robert Clipsham
<rob...@octarineparrot.com>:
You're probably better off for it - I used to be strongly in the
mercurial camp, but having used git for a while I find I vastly prefer
it, despite still not knowing how to do quite a bit with it.
Yep, Mercurial's biggest drawback imo is that bookmarks (which let you do
something analogous to git's branches) aren't standard and thus aren't
pushed/pulled by default.
Isn't cloning a sufficient equivalent to git's branches?
Cloning is a lot slower and a lot less convenient. You end up with the
SVN style of having multiple directories to keep track of everything in,
a complete pain. Mercurial does have branches, but they are magnitudes
slower than in git, and even the documentation for hg recommends cloning
if you want to do anything serious.
And of course github is way better than bitbucket, but that's not
Mercurial's fault I admit.
Totally agree. Not that I'm big fan of GitHub, but yea, definitely better
than BitBucket.
I'm subscribed to both github and bitbucket blogs (or was anyway), the
rate at which github adds cool stuff is far greater than that of
bitbucket, I can't help but feel bitbucket is playing catch up.
--
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/
