[OT] revision control: git vs mercurial as replacement for bzr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[I don't want to start a flame; just to investigate which application is
best for my particular purpose. No offence intended to anyone.]
I currently use bzr for revision control of mainly text (eg. LaTeX)
documents and simple 'scripts' to analyse scientific data, ie. not
exactly what people usually consider 'source control management'. A
typical project involves hundreds of LaTeX-files bundled into a large
document system or on the order of 10000 (static) data files that are
analysed with say up to 100 scripts and input files for gnuplot (only
those require to be versioned).
The tree of LaTeX-document also contains binary data (like figures and
pdf output files) that don't require version control, but should ideally
be synchronized between branches. (With bzr, I use a blundering
combination of rsync and 'bzr merge|pull' to synchronize all files).
I am slightly leaning towards mercurial, because it is available for
potential collaborators with MS's OS. Most of all however, I want the
tool that is powerful and efficient (both usage, time and space).
Thanks for your opinions!
Johannes
Note:
The main motivation for my switch is that bzr is still too much in
development for my taste (with etch's version). The tutorial [1] and
even the one page quick reference [2] have several commands different
and new to etch's version. I'd rather have a 'current generation'
version control system instead of a quickly evolving, slightly buggy
'next-generation' bzr.
[1] http://doc.bazaar-vcs.org/bzr.dev/tutorial.htm
[2] http://m0n5t3r.info/stuff/bzr-quickref/bzr-quickref.pdf
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG1uq9C1NzPRl9qEURAsjRAJ9pdorUGvofP3WseVsIv57ABKukeACfSmQX
PtTAYFWm3JOIxDbaHhz65D0=
=9JXe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: