On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 18:57, Florian Klaempfl <[email protected]> wrote: > > For a small project, I tried once mercurial and learned that it is much > more work. One easily gets lost with all those cloned repositories none > being naturally canonical. All not mentioning the pain of line feed > handling: it felt worse than cvs and git isn't better in this regard: > nothing does prevent users from committing and pushing a full diff due > to f.... up line feeds.
I started using Mercurial some time ago, and I can say I'm really satisfied with it: - our company uses svn, but (although I'm svn admin) I constantly need lot of branching and merging and since I do lot of work from home where Internet connection is slow, DVCS was my real need - I primarily develop on windows, and TortoseHg is really good at its job - I even have Commit dialog opened all the time :-) - as of line endings, there is win32text extension which conversions; there is also possibility to reject files with non-unix line endings; see http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/Win32TextExtension; I cannot comment on quality of this extension, all I can say is that it exists - I do not clone full repositories, but rather use named branches (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/NamedBranches) and bookmarks (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/BookmarksExtension) depending on my need, and they work very well - there are several possibilities of hg-svn integration, and I use hgsubversion which allows me to pull/push (update/commit) directly to svn server Mercurial (as any other DVCS) definitely requires more technical knowledge than SVN, so if you do not have real need for DVCS, just stay with good-old SVN :-) -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
