On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I could never understand why anyone would use anything but CVS (if that > > works for them), or git. The VCS-du-jour craze just confuses me. > > I could understand a lot why people would use subversion and not CVS. > Not that I like subversion a lot (the trunk/branches/tags system seems a > bit ad-hoc for example, though I must admit it works great), but the gcc > CVS repository took 1 hour to tag, while it's constant time for subversion. > > I could understand a little why people would use hg instead of git. I > think that git's design is better, and most of the common objections are > red herring (e.g. I never had any problem with "git diff -rHEAD vs. git > diff" because, if my commit is complicated enough to add files, I always > use "git citool" to review it instead), but it didn't work well on > Windows until very recently, and there are no good tutorials IMNSHO. git and hg mainly differ in backend storage more than anything else. It would be not difficult to write a bridge from one to the other.
My current plan is to bug a few of our devs to try git, and a few to try hg (for a few weeks each), giving them whatever tutorials are around, and see if they find it better enough than subversion. (Personally, I use hg now because being able to log/etc the entire gcc history and do offline commits makes my life a lot easier now that i travel more).
