2009/4/7 Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za>: > 2009/4/6 Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz>: >>> FWIW, I tend to agree that Hg is less disruptive than git when coming >>> from svn, at least for the simple tasks (I don't know hg enough to have >>> a really informed opinion for more advanced workflows). >> >> Yes, git rocks. > > Did Sympy move from Hg to Git?
Yes. > If so, could you give us an overview > of the pros and cons you experienced? Here are some my (subjective) observations: 1) I think all developers were able to learn git pretty easily. See also: http://wiki.sympy.org/wiki/Git_hg_rosetta_stone 2) git is faster 3) it boosted my productivity a lot, thanks to branches. Previously I was copying the whole directories with sympy, everytime someone sended a patch, just to try it. I know that hg has branches too, but imho working with them is a pain, as you can't rebase patches easily, no interactive rebase etc and also branches were in git from the beginning, so it's very polished. Hg is catching up I guess, but some things are still missing. 4) no need to learn mercurial queues, just learn git and git rebase -i, and that's all I ever need (and it's actually more powerful than MQ). So git is simpler. Ondrej _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion