A good thing to note is that you can run many of the distributed scm tools in a 'svn wrapper' mode to ease transition with existing repositories. That made the switch much easier for me. - Chad
On Jan 27, 2008 5:00 PM, Dan North <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I can see this descending into a mercurial vs git religious war :) > > Hi Corey. I'm using mercurial for both home and work use (supplementing > some of subversion's shortcomings, mainly around merging). I looked > (briefly) at git and - less briefly - at darcs. I settled on mercurial for > purely non-scientific reasons. People whose opinions I respect are using it, > the community seems both accommodating and active, and it's python which > means it runs anywhere python lives, which is all of my home and work > environments. > > Others on this list - including the lovely David - are using git and > having just as much fun and productivity, so I'm sure it comes down to a > matter of taste in the end. > > The big shift, though, is from centralised to distributed source control. > This means that any working copy is also a full repository in its own right, > so you can do everything you would usually need the server for: branching, > tagging, cloning, logging, checking in, rolling back, etc. This page ( > http://tinyurl.com/ykcs25) from the Mercurial wiki gives a pretty good > overview. The basic model will be the same for any of the distributed SCMs. > > My experience so far is: > > git: insanely fast, made up of many shell scripts, big command set, does > /BIG/ repositories (currently used for the entire linux kernel), doesn't run > on windows. > darcs: also fast, written in haskell so less "hackable". Has best > cherry-picking support (choosing out-of-sequence changesets). Apparently > doesn't do so well under biiig repositories. > mercurial: also fast (seeing a pattern here?). Seems to scale well. Has > (deliberately) svn/cvs-like command set where it can, so easy to adopt. This > is where I've ended up. > monotone: the first distributed scm I came across (Dave Astels was using > it before any of the rest of us had heard of distributed scm). Never really > used it much. > > At the end of the day it will be a personal preference. But whichever you > end up with, my prediction is that you'll enjoy it much more than > subversion. > > Cheers, > Dan > > > On 27/01/2008, Corey Haines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, all, > > > > This isn't about rspec, but this list has people whose opinions I > > respect. > > > > So, I'm looking for a new version control system for my local > > development. I was going to install subversion, but I've heard rumors of > > people using some newer ones. Thoughts? I'd like to be able to run it either > > locally or on a home server. If I run it off a home server, then it needs to > > support offline access, so that I can use a cached version when I'm not on > > my home network. For simplicity's sake, running it locally is probably a > > better solution. > > > > What do you all use? > > > > > > -Corey > > > > -- > > http://www.coreyhaines.com > > The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines > > _______________________________________________ > > rspec-users mailing list > > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
