Well, personally, I far prefer Mercurial. Which also dethroned SVN. Mercurial has all the power of Git, while providing a more usable API. My mind works like a Smalltalker's, not like Linus's.
It's true, some of the more abstruse functions of git require a longer chain of user actions in Mercurial in order to achieve the same end. But typically, the more common functions are more memorable in Mercurial than in git, and my typical use-cases for a DSCM system are less involved than that of the Linux core. On 29 November 2015 at 19:00, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com> wrote: > And there lies the trap. > > If you end up making something that works with everything, you will create > something that just works with everything instead of something that works > very well with one thing. Right now Git is by very far the undisputed king > of version control and has completely dethroned SVN. > > Ironically the things that make git integration in pharo so hard is all the > thing that are there to decouple it from git , like filetree metadata , or > continuous support for mcz and monticello. > > In the end you cant have your cake and eat it too. We will have to choose > between very good integration with git or average / mediocre integration > with multiple backends. > > On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 8:15 PM stepharo <steph...@free.fr> wrote: >> >> What I would like for Pharo is to avoid to be bound to a given back-end >> for its versionning. >> This master is a step in the right direction >> >> >> http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/hpi/source/Technische_Berichte/HPI_54.pdf >> >> Stef >> >> >
