On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Lapo Luchini <l...@lapo.it> wrote: > http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis > > Summary: > > In terms of implementation effort, Mercurial has a clear advantage due > to its efficient HTTP transport protocol. > > In terms of features, Git is more powerful, but this tends to be offset > by it being more complicated to use.
Just for the record, that was done almost one year ago and some points don't apply any more: * Git has a strong Linux heritage, and the official way to run it under Windows is to use cygwin <- not any more * Maintenance. Git requires periodic maintenance of repositories (i.e. git-gc) <- not any more Other points are not valid: * History is Sacred. They themselves say "a custom Git server could be written to disallow the loss of data", although that's not quite true. Git has hooks, simply modifying the hooks can disallow they behavior they want to disallow. And on the other hand mercurial has rebase support too. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
