On 04/30/12 09:00, Daniel Silverstone wrote:
Yes, the move is much more "away from Subversion" than towards any particular
other VCS. Specifically we're fed up with the abysmal management of merges
which Subversion just can't do well. We're also wanting to make it possible
for anyone to have useful branches of our codebase without having to have
commit rights to any part of our repositories.
That would explain why I've not had much trouble with Subversion. I have
generally been the sole committer so branching and merging have never
been much of an issue.
Mercurial: I've not spent a lot of time with this. Horror stories of data
loss and confusing errors from those I know who still love it have
prevented me.
I'm using this at the moment but only as a "satellite" to Subversion. I
have Mercurial on my laptop and sync it with the central Subversion
repository when I'm in the office. In that mode it works pretty nicely.
DARCS: I just don't trust it to be predictably performant. I've seen people
wait hours for a commit to complete sometimes. It seems to be a nice
idea in theory, but I don't approve of its reality.
I tried it many years ago but gave up after it ate my source, in that
way SourceSafe is famous for, twice in 2 days. I imagine it is more
reliable now if not faster.
I hope this was helpful/interesting for you.
Yes, thank you.
--
Matthew Hambley
