From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anteru Subject: Re: Deciding between Git/Mercurial Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:32:23 +0200 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: newsgroups@catchall.shelter13.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 29 08:34:22 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MsWI1-0002iC-KM for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:34:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752922AbZI2GeI (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:34:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752451AbZI2GeI (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:34:08 -0400 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:59968 "EHLO lo.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752324AbZI2GeH (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:34:07 -0400 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MsWHo-0002en-3V for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:34:08 +0200 Received: from lmontsouris-156-26-18-33.w80-14.abo.wanadoo.fr ([80.14.177.33]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:34:08 +0200 Received: from newsgroups by lmontsouris-156-26-18-33.w80-14.abo.wanadoo.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:34:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lmontsouris-156-26-18-33.w80-14.abo.wanadoo.fr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: > First, you have to remember that this 'number of commit' thingy is > *local* to your repository, so you cannot use commit numbers to > communicate with other developers. This is inherent and unavoidable Ah cool, thanks for clarifying this. >> So far, my key arguments are that git is more robust (more projects >> using it, larger developer base), of course git's excellent performance >> and the much better support for SVN, which is important for us as we can >> slowly migrate from SVN->Git, while hgmercurial is still in the making >> (and Python's SVN->Hg switch is for instance waiting for it). > > hgmercurial? or hgsubversion? hgsubversion of course, which is supposed to be what git-svn is already. At the moment, I already use git with our SVN server, so I can show some of the advantages (for instance, renaming works much better than with SVN itself :) ), and I guess it also makes the migration easier as everyone can try with Git locally and we switch from SVN to Git once everyone has switched locally. Thanks for all the input so far! Cheers, Anteru