dist-hg proof-of-concept ready for use

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 09:49 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> > This entire line of thinking is ridiculous (on both sides).  We should
> > just stop discussing this now, because it's not going to result in
> > anything productive and will probably deteriorate into a flamewar soon.
> > 
> > Different programs are written in different languages.  Each language
> > has advantages and disadvantages.  Code quality is more a product of the
> > author than the language.  Leave it at that.
> 
> Also, the implementation does matter, but it's not a matter of religion. 
>   It's a question of whether or not it gets us further towards our goals. 

So... if we discount the religious issue of the language it's written
in, why _would_ we consider using Hg instead of git?

I'd be much happier with git. The recent proliferation of version
control systems isn't a good thing -- I strongly believe that in general
we should stick with CVS where it's good (or entrenched) enough, and use
git for for the rest.

-- 
dwmw2