On Mon, 24 Jul 2006, Alan Robertson wrote: > CVS is not a really wonderful source control system. > > It is our plan to convert to Mercurial some time in the reasonably near > future. Reviews of it have been mostly very good. > > We will still be able to have a source control mailing list, and a web > interface. From what I can see both will be nicer than at present. > > But, it will mean people grabbing versions of the code will need to have > a copy of Mercurial.
(Just back from two-week holiday, so playing catch-up...) Agreed that CVS has been been improved upon by other offerings. But any reason for choosing mercurial, rather than subversion (svn) as the next-generation source control management system? (GNU seem to use SVN; samba has recently switched to SVN; etc.) What are the pros/cons of mercurial vs. svn? (I know almost nothing of either! But for us Linux-HA maintainers, this change could be high-impact, so it seems worth checking that we are jumping in the best direction...) -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. : _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
