> +100. Our main problem with Mercurial is that we are not *using* it. We > are just using Mercurial as a way for Jeroen to generate changelogs, and no > other collaborative purpose whatsoever (despite what individual developers > such as William might be doing with qfinishing patches, committing, etc. > locally). We currently get zero benefit from using a distributed version > control system. I completely agree with Jason's assessment of git vs. > Mercurial, namely that both are serviceable, though git is more so (due to > its topic branches support). But either git or a "real" Mercurial workflow > would be vastly superior to the frankly nonsensical way we're using > Mercurial right now. >
If anyone cares about such issues, you should come to Review Days at UW in March (tentatively scheduled for March 17-22), where we'll try to revamp how we use version control (among other things). There is funding available: e-mail me for details. David -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
