On 5/2/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Holger Berger wrote:
>> > What does that mean for "ON" - will the main OS/Net repository on
>> > opensolaris.org be based on Subversion or on Mercurial ?
>>
>> Mercurial.
>
> I think this choice is very very bad. Almost no utility software
> supports Mercurial which will not be very attractive to developers.
> You've chosen a niece product which nearly zero support (excluding the
> Mercurial developers themselves) in the open source community - which
> may be a factor which was not taken into account in the original
> evaluation.
So if it supports all the functionality we need better than any other
product it is still a bad choice ? How so ?
Maybe the fact that there is no utility software is an indication that
the product is sufficiently complete that none is needed.
Hello? I was talking about Mercurial support in other applications
such as source browsers, search engines, backup tools, ticket
generators, patch signers, splicers, bot and daemon support (for
generating RSS feeds, commit emails, firewall and proxy support).
Mercurial is supported nowhere while Google returns more than 110 hits
for Subversion leaving alone the utilities for CVS.
For example
Teamware needs ws(1) and wx(1) utility software to be useful for ON
development on a large scale but you can cope without them.
Also I'm sure I heard somewhere else that there was a pretty darn large
other open source project also moving to Mercurial, can't remember which
one.
FreeBSD was evaluating Mercurial, but the last comments from LinuxTag
2005 indicate that they are stepping back from that idea.
Holger
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
