On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 14:05 -0500, Richard Laager wrote: > On Sat, 2007-05-19 at 20:32 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote: > > SVN is centralized, Mercurial is distributed. Distributed version > > control systems allow a lot of nice things. > > Also curious here... Why Mercurial vs. TLA (I think that's what they're > calling arch now?),
Last I checked Arch / TLA seemed too complex. > Darcs, It has its own weird diff format (don't know if you could disable it) and it can use a lot of memory. > Monotone, I had forgotten it even existed. > or Git? It seems a bit kludgy with all of its different commands and scripts. Also I don't really like its code. It's using standard C functions for string manipulations and in general it's using a lot with fixed size buffers. If it wasn't written by kernel developers, I'd say it's most likely full of buffer overflows. But since it is (was?), perhaps there are only a few. I don't want to risk it. Anyway, I wanted to use a version control system that I knew was going to be usable now and would be around for a while. Mercurial seems to be used quite a lot (Mozilla, MoinMoin, Xine, ALSA, Xen), so I think it's a pretty safe choice. I was also considering Bazaar, but since it was slower than Mercurial and didn't have any big names using it, I picked Mercurial.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
