> Yes. I was answering the first question asked about FreeBSD and git...
> The clincher for me was that git is better supported by third party tools > and has gotten quite good at 'recovery from oops' which mercurial is still > lacking in both areas. I too have used both, and I had to re clone my hg > tree several times, but so far have never screwed up a git repo so bad I > had to reclone... The history rewriting of git is more integrated and more > polished than the equivalent in hg, as are the rebase workflows which > really help have a cleaner history... > Warner (Losh) I have messed up a git repo and had to reclone, but can't compare to mercurial because I have not yet used mercurial. Maybe I was inept with git. I notice many more open-source projects use git than mercurial, maybe because of the reasons explained in your post. I still see no timeline on when NetBSD will switch to mercurial, or if they could possibly change their mind in favor of git or otherwise. OpenBSD looks to be still using CVS, while DragonFlyBSD uses git. It looks like T2 project (t2sde.org) still uses subversion. Tom _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
