On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > Perhaps the choice of version control system used for OpenVPN could > > deserve a second thought -- Mercurial or better Git might support such > > models or merge queues much better than Subversion does. > > > > Nope. > subversion is the simplest one to use.
That's a moot point and depending on requirement no longer true (seems to me this assertion has always been untrue WRT Mercurial that prints helpful usage hints all along the way) -- let me state just three points where I find Mercurial (Hg) or GIT superior to SVN, and that the basic day-to-day operation is done with the usual set of checkout, diff, branch, merge, commit, log commands in either of the systems. (1) selective (partial/interactive) commits of hunks (built-in with Git, try git commit -i or -p; for Mercurial, there's the record extension that ships with the tarball proper) (2) "properties" (svn propedit ... eek) and (3) cheap & fast & really lightweight tags and branches. No need to remember URLs and type three lines even for basic operations such as tagging or branching. SVN is lightweight on the server's repository database, but heavy on my fingers and local file system... Further advocacy, comparisons, and tutorials are for other places of the Internet than this list; let me just point towards Mercurial + MQ, Git or StGit if you want patch queue handling. Historical note: If you've last looked at an early Mercurial 0.X version (current is 1.1.X), or a Git version before 1.5 (current is beyond 1.6.1), you might want to know that lots of things have improved, particularly usability and documentation. Git has evolved into a real version control system that's usable. -- Matthias Andree
