Valery Masiutsin wrote:
Hello, Massimo !
Dont worry, i am quite happy with svn.
But here are the important moments:
1. Mercurial has pretty good svn interaction set of tools - otherwise
i would not be bothered.
2. Mercurial keeps all history locally - it means i dont need
internet connection to browse svn
history, or commit my local changes - which is probably most important for me.
3.Due to some constraints - lack of time, lazyness, etc, i can have
periods of inactivity, which always ends up the same - i am spending
much time going through long "svn diff", trying to recall where did i
finish, and what was actually finished. With mercurial i have a set of
local commits, with their commit messages (which is invaluable).
Think of mercurial as about tool, which can simplify some things, not
the svn replacement.
Regards Valery.
Thank you
I checked Mercurial's website yesterday. There are some very interesting
characteristics (like the non-existence of a central repository) and it's
simple. It would be interesting in a small work group without the need
of intense centralization. It wouldn't fit my needs though. I do need a
central repository even for my personal projects.
What do you guys think about Git? It was to me a recent discover
that linux kernel switched from subversion to git.
-- Massimo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
