I'm not up to date when it comes to hg, so if you say hg's branching is at par with git's, then I'll take your word for it. :)
Like I said, they're both great systems and you can't go wrong with choosing either one of them. K.O http://keetology.com/ On Dec 5, 7:22 pm, Rajeev J Sebastian <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Keeto Obcena <[email protected]> wrote: > > Another speed boost in terms of workflow would be commits--since > > commits are done locally before pushing them to your main repo. You'll > > find yourself committing stuff more often (and that's a great thing) > > and them pushing all of your commits at once, shaving off a lot of > > time in the transfer process. Best of all, branching and merging are > > easier in Git. Torvalds designed Git to make these things waaaay > > easier than SVN (Linus hates CVS and SVN with a passion shamed only by > > his loathing of C++). > > > Finally, if you're choosing between Git and Mercurial, then you're not > > gonna commit big mistakes. Both are great systems and both have big, > > helpful communities to back them up. Git has Github and Mercurial has, > > err, BitBucket. Git is written in C and Mercurial is in Python. > > They're both fast, but Git excels in branching and merging (and it has > > its own transfer protocol that speeds things up). > > Huh ? Mercurial branching is pretty good ... pretty much the same as > git 'cept for one or two differences. If git "excels" at it, then so > does mercurial :P > > Also, Git's UI sucks ... > > Regards > Rajeev J Sebastian
