Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers

[Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>]

On Jun 28, 2005, at 18:23:09, Sean wrote:
> Git is still developing, there will be new ways to seek and cache  
> things
> etc eventually that remove any performance issue.  Git gets this  
> right, it
> concentrates on what is important, stays flexible and trusts that  
> down the
> road as things mature any performance problems can be dealt with.

Have you tried (or even looked at) Mercurial?  I'm now using it for four
different projects that used to be in CVS and I'm loving it.

> It already has some tools that are better than BK ever had (gitk,  
> gitweb,
> etc..)

Likewise for Mercurial, except that IMHO, a from-scratch Mercurial  
pull via
HTTP + Mercurial checkout is faster than a BK or GIT checkout alone.   
And
then there's the fact that it stores the whole mess in a fraction of the
space used by git.

Please, just _try_ it first.  You'll like it, I promise.  (It's also a
much smaller codebase too)

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
I lost interest in "blade servers" when I found they didn't throw  
knives at people who weren't supposed to be in your machine room.
   -- Anthony de Boer