On April 17, 2019 10:49:49 AM EDT, Hisashi T Fujinaka <ht...@twofifty.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> Agreed. And after having to deal with git for a couple of years, I
>must say
>> that I find git to be the most problematic VCS I have ever used.
>
>After using git for my day job, I find that I depend on a lot of
>features
>that are missing in cvs.
>
>All of the hg vs git web pages I find pretty much say hg isn't quite
>complete. Does anyone have any pointers for the viewpoint that hg is
>favorably comparable to git (just for my own info)?
If by "incomplete" you mean "doesn't add needless complexity" then sure. ;)
I don't have any pointers, but I've found that hg can do pretty much everything
I've needed to do with git, and it had the added benefit of guaranteeing change
history (e g with git you don't actually know whether any branch as of today
has any relation to the same branch yesterday), not to mention having a simpler
mental model.
Either git or hg work fine if you're aware of the limitations, and IMO are way
better than CVS.
Eric
